Control: tags -1 + wontfix
Control: close -1
2016-04-06 01:07 積丹尼 Dan Jacobson:
I see. Please add the @()@:
To revert the action, "aptitude install <package>" will remove the
ban. To remove the forbidden version without installing the
candidate version, the current @(installed, not candidate)@
version should be appended: "install <package>=<version>".
else people will think you mean Debian's current version, not my
computer's current version. Thanks.
2016-04-07 11:18 積丹尼 Dan Jacobson:
reopen 819943
retitle say "currently installed version" else means "Debian's current version"
thanks
How about:
To revert the action, "aptitude install <package>" will remove the ban.
To remove the forbidden version setting without installing the candidate
version, the currently installed version should be appended: "install
<package>=<version>".
Given that the terms "current" and "candidate" related to versions of
packages are core concepts of apt and aptitude and are referred as such
everywhere in the interfaces and documentation, and that you've been
using them for many years, I would have hoped that you'd get
familiarised with them by now.
Besides, these are the paragraphs that you want to change:
"By default, aptitude will select the forbidden version to be the one
which the package would normally be upgraded (the candidate
version). This may be overridden by appending “=<version>” to the
package name: for instance, “aptitude forbid-version
vim=1.2.3.broken-4”.
To revert the action, “aptitude install <package>” will remove the
ban. To remove the forbidden version without installing the candidate
version, the current version should be appended: “install
<package>=<version>”."
Look at the explanation of "(the candidate version)" in the first
paragraph, and the contrast beteween "candidate" and "current" of the
second one.
With the context, it's pretty clear that "current" can only possibly be
the currently installed version of the package. Adding "installed", as
you suggest in the latest spin to this bug report, is not going to make
it any clearer when reading the description of "forbid-version" as a
whole.
Instead of highlighting the fact of "current" being ambigous when you
remove the context, as you do in the latest messages, perhaps you should
spend more time on re-reading the whole 3 paragraphs of documentation of
this feature and see how they make sense.
PS: I already asked you to making maintainers spend so much time on
petty bugs which seem to be only important or documentation
unintelligible to you. In particular, please stop reopening when I
already made clear that I will not make any change related to this.
Cheers.
--
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montez...@gmail.com>
