#383853 apt-get uses undocumented non-word "rred" in the user interface

Package:
apt
Source:
apt
Description:
commandline package manager
Submitter:
John Marter
Date:
2022-01-03 09:06:03 UTC
Severity:
minor
#383853#5
Date:
2006-08-20 00:46:28 UTC
From:
To:
Searching google on rred reveals that it is a method of some sort, but
I cannot find an explanation documented anywhere.  The word does not
appear in any of the apt documentation that I can find.

It does however show up in the user interface when downloading updates
for the Packages file.  This word should either be documented, or replaced
with something more user friendly.  I have no suggestions since I have
not figured out what it means.
#383853#10
Date:
2007-06-21 11:48:10 UTC
From:
To:
My guess is that it is just the word 'transferred' that got truncated.
#383853#15
Date:
2007-06-27 07:03:01 UTC
From:
To:
Hey,

it seems that rred is actually some extraction or patching method, since
locate reveals /usr/lib/apt/methods/rred to exist. Also, various other bug
reports talk about rred'ing as if it is something to do with downloaded
pdiffs. Still, I would suggest something like "Extracted" or "Processed",
since the current "rred" looks like a spelling error...

Gr.

Matthijs
#383853#20
Date:
2007-10-21 12:30:30 UTC
From:
To:
Incremental apt updates use "ed" style diffs. i.e. the pdiff is a script
suitable for feeding into the "ed" line editor. Conventionally there is also
a "restricted" versions of ed called "red" which implements only a "safe"
subset of ed commands. Apt includes a partial (Reduced/even more Restricted?)
implementation of this, hence rred.

Paul
#383853#27
Date:
2012-06-23 02:57:00 UTC
From:
To:
I suggest that we rename 'rred' to 'apply-pdiff'.

If that is a suitable solution, I can try to implement it.

(I honestly found it quite surprising, nearly scary, that apt was printing
this non-word. It made me suspicious that an attacker had compromised my
machine. Not super rational of me, but you can only imagine how non-DDs
feel about it, then.)
#383853#32
Date:
2012-09-12 15:28:11 UTC
From:
To:
I thought it was a typo of "read" >.>
#383853#37
Date:
2022-01-03 09:03:44 UTC
From:
To:
I always thought this was a mangled/truncated word.
Please use something else, this doesn't mean anything.