On 05/02/14 10:34, Jason St. John wrote: > On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 12:45 AM, Allan McRae <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 03/02/14 15:34, Jason St. John wrote: >>> On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 8:45 AM, Guillaume Bouchard >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> That colour cases the dependencies to stand out more on a terminal with >>>>> a white background. I'd say bold would be better... >>>> >>>> ;) I agree on that part. I guess the best idea must be to create a >>>> color class for depend and for explicit so that changing it latter may >>>> be easier. >>>> >>>>> However, the colour coding really is unclear. How do people come into >>>>> the knowledge of what it means? For example, during an update I might >>>>> think that a new package being pulled in as a dependency so it is >>>>> highlighted. Or is it entirely obvious and I am thinking too hard? >>> >>> I agree that this would not be obvious to users. >>> >>>> >>>> You are right. Perhaps a caption, like: >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> $ sudo pacman -Su >>>> :: Starting full system upgrade... >>>> resolving dependencies... >>>> looking for inter-conflicts... >>>> >>>> Packages (21): **(Explict packages appears in bold)** >>>> >>>> Name Old Version New Version Net >>>> Change Download Size >>>> >>>> ... >>>> >>>> Total Download Size: 154.72 MiB >>>> Total Installed Size: 491.30 MiB >>>> Net Upgrade Size: -1.28 MiB >>>> >>>> :: Proceed with installation? [Y/n] >>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> ? >>>> >>>> (I had never though a *so simple* hack would generate so much discussion ;) >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Guillaume >>>> >>> >>> I don't like the idea of a caption that says something like >>> "explicitly installed packages appear in bold". >>> >>> An extra column would be better than a caption, but I don't know how >>> everyone feels about that... >>> >>> I see three ways of doing this with a column: >>> 1.) have a column title of "Explicitly Installed?" with a "yes" or >>> "no" label for each package, optionally coloring the "yes" or "no" >>> text for easy reading >>> 2.) like the first way, but put an asterisk if the package is >>> explicitly installed and leave it blank if the package is a dependency >>> 3.) have a column title of "Installed..." with labels of "explicitly" >>> or "as a dependency" >>> >>> Of those three, I think I prefer the second method. >>> >> >> I'm not sure there is enough room for another column - especially not >> with a title that long. >> >> Allan >> >> > > Currently, the width of the verbose package list is 66 columns > (checked with an update of "extra/firefox" and "community/lz4"). Each > column uses two space characters between titles. If we, instead, make > the title be "Dependency?" and we reverse the use of asterisks, the > new width would be 79 columns (66 + 2 + 11). If we're targeting a max > width of 80 columns, this would be just under the limit. For packages > with long names and/or are in a repository with a long name (e.g. > community), it would hit the max width pretty easily. > > If this increase in width is too close to the maximum desired width, > we will have to scrap the idea of using an additional column, and > we'll have to think of another way to display this information. >
It is too long. Allan
