On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 9:12 PM, Nagy Gabor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Well I am not sure Dan would like that after what he said here : >> http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2008-July/007136.html >> > > I have a completely different opinion. IMHO the current OptDepends is > totally _useless_: who checks them with -Qi or -Si?! Personally I have > no clue which packages have optional dependencies. I agree with Dan, > that optdepends shouldn't be put to install file (they will be "hidden" > after package install), but I like that they are listed. > > I think pacman should automatically print them during package install. > (Here we have formatting/localisation difficulties) This behaviour > could be disabled (to satisfy Dan ;-). >
I think I was not very clear and transformed Dan's words too much. I just talked with him and we agree on these two things : 1) printing optdepends is fine. I actually asked an user to write a feature request : http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/10630 , and I even assigned it to me. But then I ran into annoying problems. Please help, since you care about this issue. 2) messages like "check .pacnew file for new options" are useless. pacman already prints a warning when extracting pacnew files anyway. And you said yourself it might be overkill, so it shouldn't be a problem. _______________________________________________ pacman-dev mailing list [email protected] http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev
