On 15/03/13 04:49 PM, Andrew Gregory wrote: > On 03/14/13 at 06:32pm, Connor Behan wrote: >> On 14/03/13 03:25 PM, Andrew Gregory wrote: >>> On 03/14/13 at 12:40pm, Connor Behan wrote: >>>> I could modify the patch so that it limits ignorepkg to packages beside >>>> --ignore rather than clearing it. I could also check the command line >>>> arguments so that if any of them are groups rather than packages, we just >>>> bail and forget about changing ignorepkg. This would make the patch less >>>> trivial but it would change as little of the API as possible. >>>> >>>> Now that Xyne has mentioned it, I actually like the current behaviour of >>>> not printing ignored URLs for group operations. If this has been a bug all >>>> along and the automation tools will have to be changed anyway then we are >>>> once again back to an easy patch. >>>> >>> Putting the issue of how much --ignore should do, I think the root >>> issue is that pacman uses different default responses for --noconfirm >>> and --print. --print uses alpm's default value, whereas --noconfirm >>> uses a pacman-specific value. So "-S --noconfirm bar" would install >>> foo but "-Sp bar" does not print foo. This is the same reason "-Sp >>> foo" does not print foo. I see no reason why pacman shouldn't be >>> using the same value for both, which, if I'm not mistaken, would fix >>> your issue with devtools. >>> >>> apg >>> >> So if I read correctly, explicitly installing an ignored package or >> installing a group that contains an ignored package asks a yesno >> question. The question callback says to return without an answer if >> config->print is true. > Yes, pacman's entire callback function is skipped entirely if --print > is used, which is why pacman returns no response at all to alpm rather > than the default response. Used with --noconfirm, pacman returns the > default response. > >> If we want to keep this behaviour (and not have the user prompted for >> pacman -Sp), we would just make libalpm default to install=1 like pacman >> would do being sure to set it back to 0 if prompt=0. This option seems >> like the best in terms of logic. We would treat --noconfirm and --print >> symmetrically and there wouldn't be spaghetti code checking for some >> esoteric use case. However it would introduce the same complication for >> scripts that Xyne was worried about. >> > I don't think changing alpm's defaults is the correct solution here. > I still see this as a purely frontend issue. The --print option > already implies --noconfirm so the only reason I see for it to skip > the callback altogether is to avoid printing the question. I think > the proper solution is to find another way to suppress that output > that allows pacman to return the default response to alpm. > > apg > Ok, so we fix it by making --print automatically imply --noconfirm? And not having the question callback check especially for --print?
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
