Re: Terminology changes for update-alternatives
On Sun, 29 Jan 2023 at 16:01, Guillem Jover <guillem@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 :)
Reply to: