Talk:APT (software)

moo

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 did, and I just removed it again. I realize that apt-get is indeed not very serious, but this doesn't change the fact that this is an encyclopedia, and that the article is about APT, not apt-get.--Chealer 22:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• What about adding a whole section on Easter eggs, or the humor in apt-get? Since there isn't a separate article on apt-get the notable items in apt-get should be mentioned here. moo and supoer cow powers are noteworthy. Also, there is the AYBABTU reference upon a repo build. --Mastahnke 04:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• apt-get redirects to this article, and if no separate article is created about apt-get, it should also include bits about apt-get. I suggest a header "Super Cow Powers", which explains the prominent mention of "This APT has Super Cow Powers." in apt-get, and the easter egg that it is.

For example:

== Super Cow Powers ==

The command line tool, apt-get, displays a message "This APT has Super Cow Powers." in its help message. This message is a hint of an easter egg. The easter egg in apt-get is, that when typing "apt-get moo", it displays an ASCII art image of a cow, and the text "Have you mooed today?".

I don't see how this possibly fails to be encyclopediadic content. --Bisqwit 15:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• • I noticed there's actually a section about apt-get now; I'll add it there. --Bisqwit 15:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Apparently it was again removed, without discussion, by Psychnonaut. --Bisqwit 11:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Alrighty, this is now an 18-month slow-motion revert war. I concur that an easter-egg isn't notable on its own, as lots of programs have them. Is there anything special about this one, either in the context of apt itself (or linux or whatever) or in the wider world, or is it just a piece of trivia. DMacks (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Nothing. Perfectly mundane easter egg. Chris Cunningham (talk) 18:06, 4 January 2008 (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)

The addition is unsourced, not notable, and gives no further understanding of the article's subject. As such, it doesn't belong in the article. - SudoGhost 11:16, 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)

And another one from Ars Technica. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 06:11, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Use section

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)

"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)

Thank you, that's what I assumed. You can't just switch between two definitions like that.--Chealer 17:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

What two definitions? As I've used it, "use" is a homonym of "usage". Chris Cunningham 20:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

Arg, I'm an idiot. I mean synonym. Chris Cunningham 08:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Please stop altering the apt-rpm inclusion during your revert war about an unrelated issue. DMacks 06:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Right, but just that isn't necessarily a good enough reason to remove the link.--Chealer 23:49, 15 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)

apt-rpm in seealso

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

apt-rpm is linked in the intro. I'm removing it from the See Also section. Chris Cunningham 11:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

apt-rpm in seealso (redux)

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)

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)

Date format

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)

Where do you see that March 09 1999 is an acceptable format? Sorry if I'm missing something, but the page is large, so it could help to precise the section.--Chealer 18:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:DATE#Dates containing a month and a day DMacks 19:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I still can't see that March 09 1999 is an acceptable format. The section mentions the calendar date format March 09, but referring to a date as "calendar date year" is ambiguous. If that is how you read March 09 1999, I consider ISO better.--Chealer 02:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe I really have to quote this to you, but anyway, that section states the following examples:

• Day, month, and year
  • [[February 17]], [[1958]] → February 17, 1958
  • [[17 February]] [[1958]] → 17 February 1958
  • [[1958]]-[[02-17]] : 1958-02-17
  • [[1958-02-17]]: 1958-02-17

See that "February 17, 1958" example? We could therefore presume that it is an acceptible format. We could edit-war for personal preferences about which format is "better" forever and never settle it, because there is no right answer, and all the choices are valid. Therefore, WP teaches us to use whatever the original author used. Therefore, "March 09, 1999" is how it should be.

While we're nailing this coffin shut, I even found an explicit policy on ISO date formats, namely that they should not be used in general. I'll quote here so you don't have to go searching for it:

dates, for example 1958-02-17, are unambiguous. However, they are not common in English prose, and are therefore unfamiliar to many readers. Accordingly, they should generally not be used in normal prose. This applies even if they are in a link

DMacks 03:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

You were initially talking about March 09 1999, not March 09, 1999.--Chealer 03:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I am now stating clearly and explicitly that in accord with explicit WP guidelines, you are not to use ISO. I don't know how I can make it clearer than that to you. So stop adding ISO! DMacks 04:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

There are no WP guidelines that state that ISO isn't to be used. Please, rather than blaming other people for their possibly imperfect work, improve it yourself. However, it's too late this time, as I already merged it thanks to Alerante's fix. Thanks anyway.--Chealer 00:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[[March 9]], [[1999]]. When I wrote "standard English punctuation" I meant American English. æ² ✆ 2006-09-19t17:53z

If there's one particular convention I'd rather avoid it's the US date format. ISO might be difficult to read but at least it places the bits in order of significance. Chris Cunningham 09:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Once again, the article layout

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)

I'm aware that the current lead is long, but adding a random header doesn't help. As long as you stop doing that, you can play with the order of sections as you wish. -- Chealer

MedCab case

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)

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)

External link

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

That link is even less relevant, as DMacks says. BTW, it was introduced by [2] 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)

Thanks for your comments. In this context, I think we should remove the external links section. Addhoc 22:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

On Portal:Free software, Apt is currently the featured article

(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)

The selected article has moved on and is now RPM Package Manager. Gronky 14:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Apt-move, debdelta's not in the article

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)

Overuse of "front-end", and the "History" section

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)

"APT is not a package management system" -- At least by the definition and list of features in our "package management system" article apt is PART OF debians package management system.

Debian package management is multilayered. Dpkg handles the low level operations of installing/removing/upgrading packages from deb files on the hard drive. AIUI The apt libraries handle the higher level functions of working out what actions are needed to fulfill a users request based on the dependency relationships, downloading the packages required to take those actions and then calling dpkg to actually perform those actions and the frontends provide an interface to libapt and may replace some of it's functionality with their own versions (for example aptitude has it's own depencency solver). Plugwash (talk) 15:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Repos

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)

apt-zip

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)

List of apt tools

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)

Package signing

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)

Removal of Cydia

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:

• "Jay Freeman (known online as saurik) ported APT, the extremely well-supported open source package manager from Debian Linux. The project is here: www.telesphoreo.org. Cydia is a GUI front end for the Telesphoreo port of APT created by saurik." p. 20 of iPhone Hacks (2009).
• "Saurik selected the Debian Advanced Packaging Tool (APT)...Then, he wrote Cydia, a graphical front end that 'lets you install and uninstall programs the same way as the app.tapp installer does,' he said." 2008 LinuxInsider article
• "Incredible Mobile OS X project from Jay Freeman: a port of Debian’s APT with a complete, working BSD and GNU Unix userspace tool set. And a brand new GUI app to manage it, Cydia. And, unlike Installer, the whole thing is open source." Daring Fireball, February 2008

Dreamyshade (talk) 06:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

They're all relatively weak sources with puffy statements. The mention of Cydia wasn't warranted anyways IMOCantaloupe2 (talk) 10:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The first two seem sufficient to verify the claims; they're unaffiliated non-self-published sources. These other editors chose to add or improve mentions of Cydia: User:Brianreading in November 2011 (second edit), September 2010, and July 2009 (second edit); User:AntiRush in November 2008. Dreamyshade (talk) 10:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Here are a few more secondary sources on the topic:

• "These applications are distributed by their developers through the open source Cydia project, which provides a GUI front end to Debian APT." Ars Technica, January 2009
• "Freeman decided to port Debian's APT to the iPhone -- tweaking items to work better with the iPhone's relatively messed-up network settings. A UIKit front end, Cydia, provides a GUI for users to select and install programs" TUAW, February 2008
• "available through the Debian APT (advanced package tool) Cydia" The Register, April 2011
• "The guy behind Cydia, Jay Freeman (aka Saurik) has released an APT update which has significantly improved the rather slow, and painful loading times in Cydia." Redmond Pie, March 2010

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)

So, what this boils down to is the evaluation of appropriateness, which is not a razor sharp line. I think that it can do away WITHOUT reference by brand. Agent of the brand being mentioned contents removal of her company's product by brand. And at this point, we have to strike a compromise.Cantaloupe2 (talk) 23:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The article also mentions Ubuntu Software Center and Hildon Application Manager by brand name; two other editors considered Cydia appropriate to include as well, and it was in the article for four years. I have a COI for Cydia, but I'm not officially representing Cydia. What compromise would you suggest? Dreamyshade (talk) 23:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Good question. See the section "List of APT tools". Someone else raised a question if list of tools belong, and if so, what belong. Interestingly, the plant main article does have tulips, but not the fruit that is namesake with my user name. Cantaloupe however does mention the kingdom plants. Does this mean I should add it, along with every fruit? This Wikipedia:OTHERSPAM gives you the right idea. List of examples must be carefully chosen. WP:SPAMBAIT. Seeing your position, I think that there is too much COI to be in the position to say "well make my employer's product be one of them line items". The sources you provided definitely show that Cydia is based on APT, but it has yet to demonstrate to me a sufficient reciprocity. In other words, if one says APT, does the general public relate it to saurikIT's Cydia? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 10:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

#List of apt tools is discussing whether the article should document technical details about APT itself, not about whether the article should list distributions and platforms that use APT as their underlying technology. I responded to your other concerns below. Dreamyshade (talk) 18:10, 7 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, Codename Lisa (talk) 09:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I think what I need to evaluate is how closely interrelated APT is with Cydia. For example, all tulips are plants, but not all plants are tulips. So reference to plants is justified in tulip article, but not necessarily vice versa. Is there sufficient reciprocal relationship for Cydia to warrant inlusion in APT article? Also, I don't think the existence of a company page determines if the said company should be discussed in prose in other articles. I think that's actually mutually exclusive. An existence of a page on some obscure plant does not warrant prose within the main article plant conversely lack of stand alone article does not exclude inclusion of the specie in main article. I'm ok with the inclusion of APT within CYDIA. I'm not so sure about the other way around. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 10:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello Cantaloupe2

I am afraid I find your example a bit off. An article about Tulips that lists all species of Tulips (see Tulip § List of species) cannot drop one of them without supplying a good reason. Likewise, an article on APT which lists its front-ends cannot drop one without consensus. From what I see in Wikipedia, both article pairs can link to one another.

By the way, you mentioned "company"? Which company? Cydia is a computer program.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 16:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

company/product/service. As a compromise, how about a one line explanation for balance, just like " Hildon Application Manager (Maemo Application), a Maemo front-end" and use something other than WP:SPS source since Brianreading said its popular? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 16:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I've partially reverted and re-inserted Cydia, but with notation that non-primary source is needed. Fair compromise? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for implementing this edit. Instead of tagging it with "primary source", why not use the secondary sources listed above? I believe the iPhone Hacks and LinuxInsider sources are the strongest and most relevant ones. Also, I believe the original phrasing was clearer and more useful, since Cydia is only for jailbroken iOS and not normal iOS, Cydia is based on APT but is not a pure front-end for it, and the Telesphoreo project includes ports of other programs as well as APT. Here are the quotes to compare:

Previous: Cydia, a package manager for jailbroken iOS partially based on APT (ported to iOS as part of the Telesphoreo project).

Current: Cydia, a front-end to an iOS port of APT known as Telesphoreo.

Looking at the previous text again, the word "partially" is unnecessary, but I believe the rest of it makes sense as a reasonably brief summary. You could leave out the "(ported to iOS as part of the Telesphoreo project)" part if you wanted (and just say "a package manager for jailbroken iOS based on a port of APT"), since the Telesphoreo project isn't notable in itself, although including it would be supported by the sources. The apt-cdrom and APT Daemon descriptions similarly include a few details, since the projects aren't easy to describe with one phrase. Dreamyshade (talk) 00:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Which reliable secondary reference fully and completely support part of the prose? Can you link it here? I think linking to anything saurik is WP:UNDUE, WP:COI and WP:SPS Cantaloupe2 (talk) 02:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

They're linked above, but I'll repeat them and expand the quotes:

• "Thus, Jay Freeman (known online as saurik) ported APT, the extremely well-supported open source package manager from Debian Linux. The project is here: www.telesphoreo.org. Cydia is a GUI front end for the Telesphoreo port of APT created by saurik." p. 20 of iPhone Hacks (2009) (you can also verify this text by searching inside the book at Amazon).
• "Saurik selected the Debian Advanced Packaging Tool (APT) "which is used on numerous Linux installations and the one I consider to be the most stable," ported that to the iPhone and "now I have it to the point where anybody can run an APT repository in the same way you would on a machine running Debian and install what you want," he said. Then, he wrote Cydia, a graphical front end that "lets you install and uninstall programs the same way as the app.tapp installer does," he said. Because the process of porting the tools to the iPhone was similar to building a Linux distribution -- "You have to coordinate the tools together, and decide what is and what's not a package," the workload is much too heavy for only one person, so Saurik launched a project called "Telesphoreo," an open source Unix distribution "to be launched on the modern smartphone, and the first is the iPhone," he said." "Cydia is a UIKit front end that provides a graphical user interface (GUI) for users to select and install programs." "Saurik has bootstrapped Telesphoreo by porting "well over a hundred projects" ranging from Bash to Xeyes, "along with a number of supporting libraries and scripting languages" to the iPhone. All the source modifications made, as well as the build scripts for compiling them all, are available on the Telesphoreo subversion repository." 2008 LinuxInsider article

Let me know if there are any parts you consider not fully supported by those references, and I'll dig up some more. Dreamyshade (talk) 02:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the third opinion; including Cydia in the "Front-ends" list but not in the lead sounds fair to me. Cantaloupe2, APT is a fairly narrow subject (it's important but only within a fairly narrow field), so I believe the article can mention all reasonably notable front-ends without having an excessively long list, and I believe the article benefits from that list. This wouldn't work for plant because "plant" is such a broad subject. I think the LinuxInsider article helps show that people in the general open source community, not just people interested in iOS modification, find Cydia notable. I'm just discussing putting a former part of the article back into the article, not adding more than non-COI editors have added. Dreamyshade (talk) 17:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

It is a fairly good example for a front-end of APT because it is a popular front-end. I think I may have added this myself in the past. Brian Reading (talk) 21:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

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).

References

Thanks! Dreamyshade (talk) 01:09, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Y Kevin12xd (talk) (contribs) 02:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Merge from apt-file

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 23:26, 5 February 2016 (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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.