Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2011 07:09:24 -0700 From: perryh@pluto.rain.com To: dougb@freebsd.org Cc: ports@freebsd.org, jhs@berklix.com, portsuser@larseighner.com, sem@freebsd.org Subject: Re: suggestion for pkgdb from ports-mgmt/portupgrade: add more explanation Message-ID: <4e623514.yL1tB2EYfva/oUIW%perryh@pluto.rain.com> In-Reply-To: <4E61BB11.9070007@FreeBSD.org> References: <201109011333.p81DX2sN081775@fire.js.berklix.net> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1109021657410.1576@abbf.6qbyyneqvnyhc> <4E61BB11.9070007@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org> wrote: > On 09/02/2011 14:58, Lars Eighner wrote: > > The main thing here, of course, is that ports uses "dependency" > > in the exact opposite of its normal English sense (just as > > twitter uses "following" in the exact opposite of its normal > > English sense). > > > > In normal Engish 'X is a dependency of Y' means Y is necessary > > for X (X depends on Y) > > I'm not sure why you believe this to be true. Can you give > examples from non-technical English prose, and some dictionary > definitions to back up your claim? In normal English, I would not expect "dependency" to be used that way at all. Instead, I would expect something along the lines of "a state of dependency exists between X and Y". To specify the direction of the relationship, I would expect "X depends on Y" or, equivalently, "X is a dependent of Y" -- the latter being more often seen as "X is Y's dependent". Example: in connection with income taxes, "my son is my dependent".
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4e623514.yL1tB2EYfva/oUIW%perryh>