Control: tags -1 + moreinfo
Hi Axel,
On 8 March 2013 20:30, Axel Beckert <a...@debian.org> wrote:
> Package: aptitude-doc-en
> Severity: minor
> Version: 0.6.8.2-1
>
> Hi,
>
> while trying to understand more of Aptitude's resolver and how to tweak
> it, I noticed the following issues with the documentation, mostly in
>
http://people.debian.org/~abe/aptitude/en/ch02s03s05.html#secDependencyResolutionHints
>
> * It is not mentioned how multiple Aptitude::ProblemResolver::Hints have
> to be written down. Do I have to delimit them by commata? Or do
consecutiveI have
> to state Multiple
> occurrences of this directive?
I believe this is sufficiently documented. The section you mention
says (emphasis added):
Hints are stored in the apt configuration file, /etc/apt/apt.conf, in
the configuration _group_ “Aptitude::ProblemResolver::Hints”
which is followed by a cross-reference to the section _Configuration
file reference_ that defines the term:
An option that contains other options is sometimes called a _group_.
Granted so far.
and subsequently refers to the apt.conf(5) man page for more
information.
That's about three indirections away.
Yes, though ultimately aptitude borrows exactly apts configuration
system, so it is sensible to defer to their documentation for full
details. It is not possible to properly understand aptitude
configuration without reading apt.conf(5).
Together this should be adequate, yes? It is rather impractical to
repeat discussion of how option groups are specified at every
instance.
I don't think discussing the whole thing again is needed, but a small
hint towards how groups work would be appreciated. An example covering
more than one value (i.e. with full syntax and not only the value,
either for the commandline or in apt.conf syntax, probably the latter)
would fully suffice.
Ok, lets agree to put a complete example in here.
So can you provide a complete example? Maybe you still remember what
you meant here, and probably you know about this part better than I do.
You can make the changes directly, but if you don't feel comfortable
with docbook or something (I don't think so) I can help with that.
> * It is mentioned under "increase-safety-cost-to number" that "maximum"
> and "minimum" are also valid values for e.g.
> Aptitude::ProblemResolver::Remove-Level. This also seems to work for
> Aptitude::ProblemResolver::Keep-All-Level (at least with "maximum",
> see http://bugs.debian.org/702561).
>
> But this is neither mentioned in the "Configuration file reference" at
> http://people.debian.org/~abe/aptitude/en/ch02s05s05.html nor in the
> chapter "Costs in the interactive dependency resolver" at
> http://people.debian.org/~abe/aptitude/en/ch02s03s04.html where I
> would expect it.
The section on costs [ch02s03s04] is documenting components of the
safety cost calculation. These “special” cost levels are not used in
that calculation, only to reference some limit values when configuring
other parts of the resolver. IMO the definition is placed
appropriately, although it is an issue that the individual items in
_Configuration file reference_ do neither directly or indirectly
mention that the ‘maximum’ and ‘minimum’ values can be used.
The latter is my main point here, yes.
Being mentioned partway through a list any cross-reference would be
unclear, so perhaps just mention the two values everywhere in the
_Configuration file reference_ where they apply?
Fine for me.
Ok.
Same here.
Cheers.
--
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montez...@gmail.com>
