On 07/03/13 15:30, Andrew Gregory wrote: > On 03/07/13 at 02:51pm, Allan McRae wrote: >> On 07/03/13 06:31, Dan McGee wrote: >>> On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 2:19 PM, William Giokas <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 02:03:14AM +0100, Sébastien Luttringer wrote: >>>>> The main (only) purpose of -D is to be able to change packages >>>>> installation >>>>> status (deps or explicit). Having a short form offer a similar experience >>>>> that >>>>> other main pacman option (e.g. Su). >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Sébastien Luttringer <[email protected]> >>>> >>>> The --asdeps option for -S and -U does not have a shortopt. In my >>>> worthess opinion, this is a bad idea, as -d for those operations is >>>> --nodeps. >>> >>> This was my thought as well. If we are willing to use a shortopt, it >>> should apply to ALL top-level operations in the same fashion (or be >>> rejected completely), and not mislead. -Q/--query match this criteria, >>> but currently -d for -U/-S would be totally unexpected. So -1 from me. >>> >>> I have consciously made decisions over the past 3 years to not add new >>> shortopts unless they are universally applicable, so this would be a >>> step against that. If we were to do this, we would want to remove the >>> -d shortopt for --nodeps in the next release, and then add these in >>> the following release. However, this is cumbersome as `--nodeps >>> --nodeps` is really silly to type out as we allow this option to be >>> passed twice for even more dep-ignoring behavior. >>> >> >> I made the decision to take this based on: >> >> 1) it would be good to have a short options >> 2) the short letters made sense >> 3) the current usage of -d/-e in -Q is fairly similar >> 4) the current usage of -d in -S is an operation that is unrelated to -D >> so will not cause confusion. >> >> >> People manage to understand that -Sd is different from -Qd. Why the >> need to enforce consistency when there is already none? >> >> Allan > > I think that the problem is not just that -d means different things for > different operations, but that --asdeps and --asexplicit shorten differently > based on the operation. A user would likely see that --asdeps shortens to -d > with -D and assume it to do the same for -S because --asdeps is a valid option > there too. A short option may mean different things for different operations, > but all operations that accept a particular long option should use the same > short option for it. >
OK. I separate out the --asdep for -S/-U and -D mentally because they are doing completely different things. But I see the point. Patch denied. Allan
