Talk:APT (software)

moo

Why exactly was moo removed? Whoever wrote apt-get thought it noteworthy enough to be mentioned when it's run without arguments. ("This APT has Super Cow Powers.") --Calamari 01:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• I did, and I just removed it again. I realize that apt-get is indeed not very serious, but this doesn't change the fact that this is an encyclopedia, and that the article is about APT, not apt-get.--Chealer 22:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• What about adding a whole section on Easter eggs, or the humor in apt-get? Since there isn't a separate article on apt-get the notable items in apt-get should be mentioned here. moo and supoer cow powers are noteworthy. Also, there is the AYBABTU reference upon a repo build. --Mastahnke 04:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• apt-get redirects to this article, and if no separate article is created about apt-get, it should also include bits about apt-get. I suggest a header "Super Cow Powers", which explains the prominent mention of "This APT has Super Cow Powers." in apt-get, and the easter egg that it is.

For example:

== Super Cow Powers ==

The command line tool, apt-get, displays a message "This APT has Super Cow Powers." in its help message. This message is a hint of an easter egg. The easter egg in apt-get is, that when typing "apt-get moo", it displays an ASCII art image of a cow, and the text "Have you mooed today?".

I don't see how this possibly fails to be encyclopediadic content. --Bisqwit 15:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• • I noticed there's actually a section about apt-get now; I'll add it there. --Bisqwit 15:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Apparently it was again removed, without discussion, by Psychnonaut. --Bisqwit 11:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Alrighty, this is now an 18-month slow-motion revert war. I concur that an easter-egg isn't notable on its own, as lots of programs have them. Is there anything special about this one, either in the context of apt itself (or linux or whatever) or in the wider world, or is it just a piece of trivia. DMacks (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Nothing. Perfectly mundane easter egg. Chris Cunningham (talk) 18:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Use section

I don't natively speak English, so in case this conflict would be due to a communication issue, please mention which meaning of "use" is meant for the Use section you persistently readd.--Chealer 10:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

"Use" as in "usage", as in "what the code does". This is consistent with the sub-section, "sample usage". This section should come above "sources", which is out-of-place when placed before a description of how APT actually works. Chris Cunningham 11:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, that's what I assumed. You can't just switch between two definitions like that.--Chealer 17:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

What two definitions? As I've used it, "use" is a homonym of "usage". Chris Cunningham 20:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, I don't speak English natively, but I can't see how "use" and "usage" would be homonyms. Which meaning of homonym do you mean?--Chealer 00:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Arg, I'm an idiot. I mean synonym. Chris Cunningham 08:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

If you use "use" as a synonym, of "usage", then you should use "usage", which is less ambiguous. But even then, I only see part of your "Use" section's content being about usage, so I'm going to revert unless you disagree.--Chealer 18:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Fine, I'll change it to "usage". And the whole thing is about how the program is used, so the onus is on you to provide reasons not to move the sections about. Chris Cunningham 20:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

There aren't multiple reasons, the content simply isn't all about usage. For example, it contains a list of APT front-ends, which isn't about how the program is used. You should be able to find more examples yourself. --Chealer 06:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't follow the logic behind the statement that discussing the programs used to access the apt libraries is not part of the usage of the program. Chris Cunningham 09:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I agree that the list of APT front-ends can let the reader infer how to obtain or access a front-end. However, one thing that isn't about how to use APT is the first paragraph of your Use section.--Chealer 23:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Please stop altering the apt-rpm inclusion during your revert war about an unrelated issue. DMacks 06:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Ur, if you want no See also link to apt-rpm in the article, please remove it. I may avoid restoring it now that you provided a potentially convincing reasoning for removing it.--Chealer 23:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The link to apt-rpm in the first sentence of the article has been pointed out in the edit summaries numerous times. Chris Cunningham 09:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Right, but just that isn't necessarily a good enough reason to remove the link.--Chealer 23:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

apt-rpm in seealso

See Also is intended for links to related topics which aren't directly linked in the article.

How do you know?--Chealer 17:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Guide to Layout description of a "See also" section states that this section is for "other articles in the Wikipedia that are related to this one [...] it should ideally not repeat links already present in the article." DMacks 17:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, ideally links shouldn't be duplicated. That guide doesn't restrict See also to pages not already linked in the article though.--Chealer 19:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, it's the consensus opinion of many editors and is the official guide for how pages should be written. It's not a hard-and-fast rule, but there needs to be a good rationale for why this link on this page is should go outside of that guideline. Without a convincing argument for this special case, I don't think it belongs. DMacks 19:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

That's not the point. My point was that Chris Cunningham's rationale for removing the link is erroneous. Whether or not the link should be removed can be discussed if someone explains a valid reason to remove it (but in a new thread, please).--Chealer 00:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

No, that's entirely the point. This thread started with Chris stating his reasoning, and then you (as best I can tell) disagreeing that it was a valid reason. DMacks 01:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, the thread I was referring to is the subthread starting at "How do you know?", not the "entire thread". Feel free to start a new thread about removing the link for a valid reason. Until there's consensus around that, I'm going to revert the removal.--Chealer 01:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

apt-rpm is linked in the intro. I'm removing it from the See Also section. Chris Cunningham 11:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

apt-rpm in seealso (redux)

I don't think a link to apt-rpm is appropriate in the See Also section. There is already a link in the body text, and the Wikipedia:Guide to Layout states that there is consensus that the "See also" section "should ideally not repeat links already present in the article."[1] Therefore, there needs to be a rationale for why this link should be included there, given that doing so goes outside of the guideline. Without a convincing argument for this special case, I don't think it belongs. That is, we should default to following the guideline. DMacks 02:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and I also don't see any reason for reverting the "use" section. It's illogical to present the concept of repositories before explaining how apt goes about installing things. Chris Cunningham 08:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Date format

WP:DATE instructs that both 1999-03-09 and March 09 1999 are acceptable formats. In cases where multiple styles are correct and there is no compelling reason for one or the other, WP generally teaches to use whatever the original author used and to remain consistent throughout a given page. This page originally had the Month DD, YYYY format. There has been no compelling (or indeed any?) reason given for the change. Therefore, that is the format we should have here. DMacks 13:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Where do you see that March 09 1999 is an acceptable format? Sorry if I'm missing something, but the page is large, so it could help to precise the section.--Chealer 18:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:DATE#Dates containing a month and a day DMacks 19:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I still can't see that March 09 1999 is an acceptable format. The section mentions the calendar date format March 09, but referring to a date as "calendar date year" is ambiguous. If that is how you read March 09 1999, I consider ISO better.--Chealer 02:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe I really have to quote this to you, but anyway, that section states the following examples:

• Day, month, and year
  • [[February 17]], [[1958]] → February 17, 1958
  • [[17 February]] [[1958]] → 17 February 1958
  • [[1958]]-[[02-17]] : 1958-02-17
  • [[1958-02-17]]: 1958-02-17

See that "February 17, 1958" example? We could therefore presume that it is an acceptible format. We could edit-war for personal preferences about which format is "better" forever and never settle it, because there is no right answer, and all the choices are valid. Therefore, WP teaches us to use whatever the original author used. Therefore, "March 09, 1999" is how it should be.

While we're nailing this coffin shut, I even found an explicit policy on ISO date formats, namely that they should not be used in general. I'll quote here so you don't have to go searching for it:

dates, for example 1958-02-17, are unambiguous. However, they are not common in English prose, and are therefore unfamiliar to many readers. Accordingly, they should generally not be used in normal prose. This applies even if they are in a link

DMacks 03:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

You were initially talking about March 09 1999, not March 09, 1999.--Chealer 03:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I am now stating clearly and explicitly that in accord with explicit WP guidelines, you are not to use ISO. I don't know how I can make it clearer than that to you. So stop adding ISO! DMacks 04:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

There are no WP guidelines that state that ISO isn't to be used. Please, rather than blaming other people for their possibly imperfect work, improve it yourself. However, it's too late this time, as I already merged it thanks to Alerante's fix. Thanks anyway.--Chealer 00:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[[March 9]], [[1999]]. When I wrote "standard English punctuation" I meant American English. æ² ✆ 2006-09-19t17:53z

If there's one particular convention I'd rather avoid it's the US date format. ISO might be difficult to read but at least it places the bits in order of significance. Chris Cunningham 09:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Once again, the article layout

Removing the first header makes the intro too long. The Sources section does not belong above the sample usage, because the concept of sources is not as important as the basic mechanism by which APT works. And please stop reverting the intro; the current version makes sense, is succinct, and reads like first-language English. Chris Cunningham 09:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm aware that the current lead is long, but adding a random header doesn't help. As long as you stop doing that, you can play with the order of sections as you wish. -- Chealer

MedCab case

Mediator: Addhoc. Involved Parties: Chris Cunningham, Chealer, DMacks

Would any other involved parties add their name to the list. Thanks, Addhoc 12:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think DMacks is involved in this case. He did contribute edits during the conflict, but he never got involved in reverting stuff AFAIK.--Chealer 17:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

External link

Could we start the mediation by discussing this externa link: http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/apt-howto/index.en.html which appears to be an online manual. Addhoc 19:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Weakly opposed. It looks like it's mostly a manual for apt-get and other command-line tools that come with apt, so maybe it would be better to include it as a footnote when discussing the front ends? OTOH, the doc mixes many topics (general apt configs, the apt-get command, other apt commands like dselect), so it might be better to omit this link and instead (if anything) have links to specific components of that (or another) doc in the relevant sections of the article. Or scrap it altogether...I don't think wiki pages generally link to external documentation about how to use their subject (instead link to a primary site for the subject overall, which would include links to docs). DMacks 19:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Right, but there's no website for APT.--Chealer 17:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

There's no requirement that a wikipage have an extlink to a website. If there's no appropriate, focused/on-topic/relevant website, I don't think we should link to some marginally-relevant one "just to have a link to somewhere". DMacks 20:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, but I don't see your point. In case you missed it, I was replying to the last part of your post (instead link to a primary site for the subject overall, which would include links to docs).--Chealer 22:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

My bad. I somehow read "but there's no website for APT" to mean "...so maybe go with this other off-topic-ish one instead." DMacks 22:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. It's basically a prescriptive link. If it were an actual man page I could see the point in it staying, but it doesn't describe what APT actually is so much as instruct one how to use it. It doesn't fit under any of the criteria for a site which should be listed under WP:EL. Including it invites further prescriptive edits to the extlinks. Chris Cunningham 23:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Weak keep. That HOWTO covers Debian package management quite a bit. I agree that the topic is broader than APT and that there is very little non-HOWTO content, but in the absence of an article which covers Debian package management in general, the link is still relevent. Now that we know there are as many people asking to remove the link as there are people for keeping it, the moderator can be assured that I won't object to any decision that can be made. I care very little.--Chealer 17:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Chealer, could we replace the link with http://www.debianapt.info/ ? Addhoc 20:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Seems even further off-topic to me...it's a list of packages that are available via apt from some particular server for one particular OS platform. A bit like an article about telephones, or at best telephone-numbers in general, linking to the New York City telephone book. DMacks 21:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

That link is even less relevant, as DMacks says. BTW, it was introduced by [2] but I removed it since. Unless I'm missing that this site links to information about APT itself, I consider it a commercial site.--Chealer 22:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. In this context, I think we should remove the external links section. Addhoc 22:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

On Portal:Free software, Apt is currently the featured article

(2007-01-12) Just to let you know. The purpose of selecting an article is both to point readers to the article and to highlight it to potential contributors. It will remain on the portal for a week or so. The previous selected article was Valgrind. Gronky 15:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The selected article has moved on and is now RPM Package Manager. Gronky 14:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Apt-move, debdelta's not in the article

There is no mention of either apt-move or debdelta's while if u wanna make it full-featured like rpm has atleast mention of debrpm's . Shirishag75 12:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Overuse of "front-end", and the "History" section

The term "front-end" is used too much in this article. For most of the first few paragraphs, you can hardly go for more than a sentence without coming across it. It's also used confusingly - APT is a front-end to dpkg, or the various programs listed (dselect removed) are front-ends to APT. One or the other please, not both. APT is not a package management system, it is an interface to dpkg (which is a package management system).

The "History" section reads a bit like "What I did last summer", with commensurate sourcing. The threshold for including information is "verifiability, not truth", and the constant references to things that may or may not have happened on IRC are worthless if they cannot be backed up. Even the mailing list post saying "We discussed it on IRC last night" doesn't exactly fit our definition of what might be a reliable source. 81.104.175.145 15:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Repos

I've made a repo, but it doesn't work quite right. Where is the documentation for creating APT-friendly repositories? — Chameleon 03:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

QQ"Y"

[][http://www.example.com link title]Insert non-formatted text here