On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 09:29:55AM -0600, Dan McGee wrote: > 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 >
+1. We've made a point of explcitly *removing* the shortopts for infrequently used or dangerous options (-k no longer exists for --dbonly, and -f for --force has gone away). I tend to think that anything involving the -D operation can be destructive and infrequently used. Let's not go in the opposite direction of this.
