> You mean -Qi? And like we already do? Heh, whoops. You're quite right. I'd still like a second opinion on removing optional installed packages from the output, though.
On 07/12/2013 01:17 AM, Allan McRae wrote: > On 12/07/13 16:06, Drew DeVault wrote: >>> What if we just did not print installed optional dependencies? >> I'm open to that idea, but hesitant to completely remove them. Maybe we >> can adjust the output of pacman -Si to include this status in the >> optional dep list? >> I'd like additional opinions for either of these changes. >> > You mean -Qi? And like we already do? > > >
