2013/10/4 Jeremy Heiner <[email protected]>: > I'm using -Qkkk right now (easy hack, minimal footprint), but like the > output format that can easily be tweaked. > > One reason I keep associating this new find untracked feature with the > existing '--check's is that they are algorithmic cousins. From the > controller (query.c) point of view these 3 features are called in > basically identical ways. And from the implementation (check.c) view > they all have the same shape (for each file in list call 1 or more > predicates). However, I'm definitely not implying that implementation > details should dictate user interface. > > But there seems to be a deeper reason. It's rooted in the use case. > Consider what actions the user must do to achieve the goal. At a > minimum(*) they must invoke pacman twice. Just -Qk isn't enough > because it ignores the mtrees. And just -Qkk checks nothing for > packages without an mtree. Am I wrong to think that adding another > step is the wrong direction to go to help the user achieve their goal? > > So I want to advocate for a solution that does all the steps in a > single invocation. I don't want to remove the ability to run the steps > independently. In fact, I think it makes a lot of sense for the output > of the single invocation to be very terse, providing the 10,000 foot > view, and the user needs to re-invoke (w/ different args) for more > detail on any problems noted in the overview. > > (*)Are there other steps that should be folded in? My brain is so down > in the weeds of the implementation right now that I don't completely > trust my view of the trees, much less the forest. >
Yeah, I second your propose, I used to combine `find` and `pacman -Qo` to accomplish this, but it is too time consuming, being able to have this as a built-in feature and an option would be really great.
