On 04/10/13 09:48, Jeremy Heiner wrote: > On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 10:38 PM, Allan McRae <[email protected]> wrote: >> I am very against that style of output. I want it to be clear what the >> change is without having to decipher a code. > > Like I said, the output format isn't something I've put much thought > into. The "ls -l" style is just something that is so ubiquitous that I > thought it would be easy to grok. Any suggestions for a style of > output would be great. But, perhaps, discussing output format might be > a bit premature. > > The thing I want to put thinking time into right now is the use case > scenario. The motivation. Part of system maintenance should be > comparing pacman's idea of the filesystem with the actual contents of > the filesystem. And part of that is keeping an eye out for stray files > in managed dirs. I've identified check.c as the place for this as it > already iterates over the package files and mtrees. Details like > output format can be settled later. But are there any major pitfalls > here that I am just not seeing? (It certainly wouldn't be the first > time that's happened to me ;)
OK... I am mildly convinced that this should be part of pacman rather than in a separate tool. But, I do not think it should be part of -Qk or -Qkk. These check that what is listed in the local database is correct. Looking for untracked files is a separate task and should be treated as such. Allan
