Output questions

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
6 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Output questions

Aaron Griffin
I have a few pending questions about the current output that I'd like
to get some opinions on.

Firstly, the spacing in -Ss output - there is an extra newline after
each package.  This was added a while back upon request, and i
personally like it, but it makes the output real huge.

Looks like the options are:
* Keep the line (-Ss output)
* Remove the line (-Qs output)
* Add the line between repositories only.

Secondly, we have an interesting -Ss "issue" here:
$ pacman -Ss ^kernel26$

This should only output (duh) kernel26.  However, it also displays
kernel26beyond.  This is because -Ss ALSO searches the provides=()
entries for each package... this is a bit misleading.

The options are as follows:
* Keep this search and indicate, somewhere, that the package was
matched due to a provides=() entry
* Don't search provides=() at all


So, I'd like some opinions on these two topics... there's probably
more somewhere, but I can't think of any.

_______________________________________________
pacman-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Output questions

Dale Blount
On Wed, 2007-01-24 at 10:19 -0600, Aaron Griffin wrote:

> I have a few pending questions about the current output that I'd like
> to get some opinions on.
>
> Firstly, the spacing in -Ss output - there is an extra newline after
> each package.  This was added a while back upon request, and i
> personally like it, but it makes the output real huge.
>
> Looks like the options are:
> * Keep the line (-Ss output)
> * Remove the line (-Qs output)
> * Add the line between repositories only.
>

I have no preference here.

> Secondly, we have an interesting -Ss "issue" here:
> $ pacman -Ss ^kernel26$
>
> This should only output (duh) kernel26.  However, it also displays
> kernel26beyond.  This is because -Ss ALSO searches the provides=()
> entries for each package... this is a bit misleading.
>
> The options are as follows:
> * Keep this search and indicate, somewhere, that the package was
> matched due to a provides=() entry
> * Don't search provides=() at all

or:
3) Don't search provides with -Ss, but add another option for searching
provides.

Dale


_______________________________________________
pacman-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Output questions

Roman Kyrylych
2007/1/24, Dale Blount <[hidden email]>:

> On Wed, 2007-01-24 at 10:19 -0600, Aaron Griffin wrote:
> > I have a few pending questions about the current output that I'd like
> > to get some opinions on.
> >
> > Firstly, the spacing in -Ss output - there is an extra newline after
> > each package.  This was added a while back upon request, and i
> > personally like it, but it makes the output real huge.
> >
> > Looks like the options are:
> > * Keep the line (-Ss output)
> > * Remove the line (-Qs output)
> > * Add the line between repositories only.
> >
>
> I have no preference here.

It doesn't matter much for me, but IMHO it would be better to have -Ss
and -Qs with the same look.

> > Secondly, we have an interesting -Ss "issue" here:
> > $ pacman -Ss ^kernel26$
> >
> > This should only output (duh) kernel26.  However, it also displays
> > kernel26beyond.  This is because -Ss ALSO searches the provides=()
> > entries for each package... this is a bit misleading.
> >
> > The options are as follows:
> > * Keep this search and indicate, somewhere, that the package was
> > matched due to a provides=() entry
> > * Don't search provides=() at all
>
> or:
> 3) Don't search provides with -Ss, but add another option for searching
> provides.

Also, in the previous discussion about this there was a mention of
adding a reason to packages that were matched because of provides.
I like Dale's idea though. I don't think pacman has too much options,
so some new option won't hurt IMHO. However there's no need to make
all options single-char, something like -Ss --provides will be enough,
IMHO.

--
Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)
_______________________________________________
pacman-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Output questions

James Rosten
I like the idea of possibly pointing out that it is a provides with
-Ss, maybe like:

$ pacman -Ss ^kernel26$
current/kernel26.....
....
extra/kernel26beyond.... (provides)
.....

~ Jamie / yankees26

_______________________________________________
pacman-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Output questions

Dan McGee
In reply to this post by Aaron Griffin
On 1/24/07, Aaron Griffin <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I have a few pending questions about the current output that I'd like
> to get some opinions on.
>
> Firstly, the spacing in -Ss output - there is an extra newline after
> each package.  This was added a while back upon request, and i
> personally like it, but it makes the output real huge.
>
> Looks like the options are:
> * Keep the line (-Ss output)
> * Remove the line (-Qs output)
> * Add the line between repositories only.
>

Any firm opinions here? I guess I'd say remove it because the output
gets so big when more than 5 or so packages are matched. But I don't
want to make the wrong call. Let me know and I'll patch it up to at
least be consistent in the next few days.

>
> The options are as follows:
> * Keep this search and indicate, somewhere, that the package was
> matched due to a provides=() entry
> * Don't search provides=() at all
* OR Dale's suggestion-  seperate --provides search flag (e.g. -Ss
--provides) and we could even add --depends, etc.

I say option 1 - indicate that it matched provides somewhere in the
output. I don't know if query search works the same way, but if it
does, that will get changed too.

If anyone else wants to give input, now's your chance.

-Dan

_______________________________________________
pacman-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Output questions

Roman Kyrylych
2007/1/31, Dan McGee <[hidden email]>:
> * OR Dale's suggestion-  seperate --provides search flag (e.g. -Ss
> --provides) and we could even add --depends, etc.

Again, --depends will result in "reverse depends" feature, so it would
be better implement it as standalone feature, IMO. And that feature
would be cool. :)

--
Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)
_______________________________________________
pacman-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev