On Sun, 29 Jan 2023 at 16:01, Guillem Jover <guil...@debian.org> wrote:
> I'd like to move away from the master/slave terminology used in > update-alternatives for both the external interfaces (CLI options, > output fields) obviously preserving backwards compatibility, docs > and for all the internal code symbols. For the same reasons as mentioned > in <https://lists.debian.org/debian-dpkg/2021/03/msg00002.html>. (This > is bug #884368.) > > This has kind of blocked improvements as there was no desire to expand > their usage in other places, where depending on the context it would > imply more painful transitions being involved. > > For debhelper, Niels decided to use for its declarative support the term > "Dependents", which while not a wrong term, I've always found it too > close to dependencies which we use in the packaging relationships context, > potentially adding to the concept overload/confusion, in addition of > being long, so I've had my reservations about switching to it. > > I've been pondering about other options, and I think the concept that > seems to describe best the relationship is akin a planet and its moon > or satellite orbiting around it and being pulled along. But satellite > seems too long and unrelated as a direct term. > > (Primary/secondary do not seem to represent this well, and I have an > aversion to the leader/follower pair and they don't seem to fit well > here anyway.) > All of which I seem to find issue with. But finally the one that I > came up with recently, seems somewhat satisfactory, as it is short > and seems to represent the relationship adequately: > > * «tow links» or «towed links» (not sure what would be best) > --tow (additional CLI option) > «Tows:» or «Towed:» (additional output fields) > > So the pair could end up being «main link» and «tow link» or > «towed link». For the fields I'm not sure either, which of «Tows»: or > «Towed:» would be better in place of «Slaves:». > > (I've got a couple of branches with trials, that I can easily amend or > create a new one replacing them automatically.) > > Do these sound good? Do you have other (better) suggestions? Hi, Just offering my perspective as a native English speaker, I think that is what is being requested here? "Tow" sounds inappropriate to me, like a mis-translation by someone not familiar with the technical domain. My opinion is that I would definitely not choose that. I would use "primary" together with "alternatives" or "alternates". No need to spend any more time thinking about it :)