Talk:APT (software)

message: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: Thank you, that's what I assumed. You can't just switch between two definitions like that.--Chealer 17:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What two definitions? As I've used it, "use" is a homonym of "usage". Chris Cunningham 20:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Arg, I'm an idiot. I mean synonym. Chris Cunningham 08:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Please stop altering the apt-rpm inclusion during your revert war about an unrelated issue. DMacks 06:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: Right, but just that isn't necessarily a good enough reason to remove the link.--Chealer 23:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  apt-rpm in seealso 

message: 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." 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  apt-rpm in seealso (redux) 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-09-11_Chealer%2C_APT|MedCab case]] 

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

text: 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)

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

text: That link is even less relevant, as DMacks says. BTW, it was introduced by  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)
replies: text: Thanks for your comments. In this context, I think we should remove the external links section. Addhoc 22:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External link 

message: (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)
replies: text: The selected article has moved on and is now RPM Package Manager. Gronky 14:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  On [[Portal:Free software]], Apt is currently the featured article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Apt-move, debdelta's not in the article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Repos 

message: Given the fact that the link to apt-zip opens a page that is an exact duplicate of this one, is that link really desirable?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frikdt (talk • contribs) 07:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  apt-zip 

message: Would a complete list of apt tools such as apt-get, apt-cache, etc belong in this article?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tidus3684 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of apt tools 

message: One thing missing is a description of how packages are signed.  PGP obviously plays a role, but how?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.193.156.213 (talk) 09:38, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Package signing 

message: As discussed above, I'd like to suggest changing this text which is currently in the article but unreferenced: 
:Cydia, a front-end to an iOS port of APT known as Telesphoreo.
Back to its previous version due to being more accurate (minus the word "partially" for conciseness), and to improve it by including these references that support it:
:Cydia, a package manager for jailbroken iOS based on APT (ported to iOS as part of the Telesphoreo project).
Thanks! Dreamyshade (talk) 01:09, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request 

message: The article apt-file should be merged into this one, just as apt-get is. That article is effectively a (perma-)stub, with no sources showing notability. It is simply a minor component of APT.  — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 15:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from apt-file