On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 9:08 AM, Sébastien Luttringer <[email protected]> wrote: > 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?
Not every operation deserves a shortopt; these are used so much less than other operations that I don't feel the loss of self-explanation is worth it. -Dan
