This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
APT (software) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the apt-file page were merged into APT (software) on 5 February 2016. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Why exactly was moo removed? Whoever wrote apt-get thought it noteworthy enough to be mentioned when it's run without arguments. ("This APT has Super Cow Powers.") -- Calamari 01:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I have already added the section about the easter eggs. I thought it's necessary because it's not only about "apt-get" but also about "aptitude" and "apt-build" and maybe in other apts. And if any of you have installed the "apt-build", please help me to add it on the easter eggs section. By the way, I'm not a native English speaker too, so if you found any error, please help me to edit it. Haneluya ( talk) 10:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
For those editors that want this easter egg in the article, this is a source from Linux Magazine and another one about its origin. 84.127.80.114 ( talk) 13:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
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)
I'm confused by this line "[...] GTK+ / KDE graphical user interface". One one side of "/" there is a Desktop environment name and on the other - a toolkit that's used in another. In my opinion it should be either "GNOME/KDE" or "GTK+/Qt". Pavel 13:37, 13 June 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.167.15.163 ( talk)
See Also is intended for links to related topics which aren't directly linked in the article.
apt-rpm is linked in the intro. I'm removing it from the See Also section. Chris Cunningham 11:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
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." [1] 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)
WP:DATE instructs that both 1999- 03-09 and March 09 1999 are acceptable formats. In cases where multiple styles are correct and there is no compelling reason for one or the other, WP generally teaches to use whatever the original author used and to remain consistent throughout a given page. This page originally had the Month DD, YYYY format. There has been no compelling (or indeed any?) reason given for the change. Therefore, that is the format we should have here. DMacks 13:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
[[March 9]], [[1999]]. When I wrote "standard English punctuation" I meant American English. æ ² ✆ 2006-09-19t17:53z
Removing the first header makes the intro too long. The Sources section does not belong above the sample usage, because the concept of sources is not as important as the basic mechanism by which APT works. And please stop reverting the intro; the current version makes sense, is succinct, and reads like first-language English. Chris Cunningham 09:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
(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)
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)
The term "front-end" is used too much in this article. For most of the first few paragraphs, you can hardly go for more than a sentence without coming across it. It's also used confusingly - APT is a front-end to dpkg, or the various programs listed (dselect removed) are front-ends to APT. One or the other please, not both. APT is not a package management system, it is an interface to dpkg (which is a package management system).
The "History" section reads a bit like "What I did last summer", with commensurate sourcing. The threshold for including information is "verifiability, not truth", and the constant references to things that may or may not have happened on IRC are worthless if they cannot be backed up. Even the mailing list post saying "We discussed it on IRC last night" doesn't exactly fit our definition of what might be a reliable source. 81.104.175.145 15:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
The article currently reads: "aptitude has a smarter dist-upgrade feature called full-upgrade.[13]" - however the refernce for that statement hardly warrents such it. Suggest delete Achristoffersen ( talk) 09:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
This edit removed both mentions of Cydia with the edit summary "WP:ADVERT Cydia inclusion in which its employee is involved, COI", and I think this could use some discussion. I'm a COI editor, and I edited that material for clarity twice ( March 2011 and November 2011), but I didn't add it to the article originally. Here are secondary sources that can support this material if other editors believe that it should be added back:
Dreamyshade ( talk) 06:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Here are a few more secondary sources on the topic:
I believe this also fits with WP:PRESERVE - "Preserve appropriate content. As long as any of the facts or ideas added to the article would belong in a 'finished' article, they should be retained if they meet the requirements of the three core content policies (Neutral point of view, Verifiability and No original research)". Dreamyshade ( talk) 22:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request: |
Hi. I am responding to this discussion on behalf of a
third opinion request. I see that
this edit has removed Cydia's mention from the article's lead and the front-end section. In my humble opinion, the removal from the article lead is okay, given
MOS:LEAD. But the removal from the embedded list front-page section is not okay.
Cydia has an article in Wikipedia and as long that article is not deleted, it deserves equal treatment.
Best regards, |
As discussed above, I'd like to suggest changing this text which is currently in the article but unreferenced:
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:
References
Thanks! Dreamyshade ( talk) 01:09, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Kevin12xd ( talk) ( contribs) 02:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
APT (software) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the apt-file page were merged into APT (software) on 5 February 2016. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Why exactly was moo removed? Whoever wrote apt-get thought it noteworthy enough to be mentioned when it's run without arguments. ("This APT has Super Cow Powers.") -- Calamari 01:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I have already added the section about the easter eggs. I thought it's necessary because it's not only about "apt-get" but also about "aptitude" and "apt-build" and maybe in other apts. And if any of you have installed the "apt-build", please help me to add it on the easter eggs section. By the way, I'm not a native English speaker too, so if you found any error, please help me to edit it. Haneluya ( talk) 10:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
For those editors that want this easter egg in the article, this is a source from Linux Magazine and another one about its origin. 84.127.80.114 ( talk) 13:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
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)
I'm confused by this line "[...] GTK+ / KDE graphical user interface". One one side of "/" there is a Desktop environment name and on the other - a toolkit that's used in another. In my opinion it should be either "GNOME/KDE" or "GTK+/Qt". Pavel 13:37, 13 June 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.167.15.163 ( talk)
See Also is intended for links to related topics which aren't directly linked in the article.
apt-rpm is linked in the intro. I'm removing it from the See Also section. Chris Cunningham 11:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
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." [1] 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)
WP:DATE instructs that both 1999- 03-09 and March 09 1999 are acceptable formats. In cases where multiple styles are correct and there is no compelling reason for one or the other, WP generally teaches to use whatever the original author used and to remain consistent throughout a given page. This page originally had the Month DD, YYYY format. There has been no compelling (or indeed any?) reason given for the change. Therefore, that is the format we should have here. DMacks 13:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
[[March 9]], [[1999]]. When I wrote "standard English punctuation" I meant American English. æ ² ✆ 2006-09-19t17:53z
Removing the first header makes the intro too long. The Sources section does not belong above the sample usage, because the concept of sources is not as important as the basic mechanism by which APT works. And please stop reverting the intro; the current version makes sense, is succinct, and reads like first-language English. Chris Cunningham 09:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
(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)
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)
The term "front-end" is used too much in this article. For most of the first few paragraphs, you can hardly go for more than a sentence without coming across it. It's also used confusingly - APT is a front-end to dpkg, or the various programs listed (dselect removed) are front-ends to APT. One or the other please, not both. APT is not a package management system, it is an interface to dpkg (which is a package management system).
The "History" section reads a bit like "What I did last summer", with commensurate sourcing. The threshold for including information is "verifiability, not truth", and the constant references to things that may or may not have happened on IRC are worthless if they cannot be backed up. Even the mailing list post saying "We discussed it on IRC last night" doesn't exactly fit our definition of what might be a reliable source. 81.104.175.145 15:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
The article currently reads: "aptitude has a smarter dist-upgrade feature called full-upgrade.[13]" - however the refernce for that statement hardly warrents such it. Suggest delete Achristoffersen ( talk) 09:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
This edit removed both mentions of Cydia with the edit summary "WP:ADVERT Cydia inclusion in which its employee is involved, COI", and I think this could use some discussion. I'm a COI editor, and I edited that material for clarity twice ( March 2011 and November 2011), but I didn't add it to the article originally. Here are secondary sources that can support this material if other editors believe that it should be added back:
Dreamyshade ( talk) 06:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Here are a few more secondary sources on the topic:
I believe this also fits with WP:PRESERVE - "Preserve appropriate content. As long as any of the facts or ideas added to the article would belong in a 'finished' article, they should be retained if they meet the requirements of the three core content policies (Neutral point of view, Verifiability and No original research)". Dreamyshade ( talk) 22:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request: |
Hi. I am responding to this discussion on behalf of a
third opinion request. I see that
this edit has removed Cydia's mention from the article's lead and the front-end section. In my humble opinion, the removal from the article lead is okay, given
MOS:LEAD. But the removal from the embedded list front-page section is not okay.
Cydia has an article in Wikipedia and as long that article is not deleted, it deserves equal treatment.
Best regards, |
As discussed above, I'd like to suggest changing this text which is currently in the article but unreferenced:
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:
References
Thanks! Dreamyshade ( talk) 01:09, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Kevin12xd ( talk) ( contribs) 02:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
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)