On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 6:32 AM, Allan McRae <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > ok, we can use -e to explicit deps, as it's not used on -S/-U/-D (which have all --asexplicit).
-d is used by --nodeps, do you have a suggestion for a short option for --asdeps? -- Sébastien "Seblu" Luttringer https://www.seblu.net GPG: 0x2072D77A
