David Kalnischkies wrote on 3/13/24 2:28 AM:
> What would this achieve; what is the use case?
The use case is when a repo has too many versions of a software on it.
I'd only be interested in seeing the details for the Installed and
Candidate versions, so even my initial --versions suggestion is not good
enough for that.
> I literally see no point in having 'policy' limited to a single
> version (and which one?) given its usually used to show which versions
> are available from where, how the pin values are for those and which
> one is considered the candidate as a result of that.
Maybe just the candidate version? Who knows? Chances are someone would
find it useful.
> Uhm… beside that the --no-all-versions flag switches the display from
> "display all versions" to "display the candidate version only" in e.g.
> 'show' (and one or the other is the default in apt-cache vs. apt), so
> the equivalent would be more like '1' … and '0' would display nothing?
Precisely, for those of us looking for a little more zen in our lives.
> How would --versions=3 behave through: Assuming I have 5 different
> versions available in the sources, which of these are displayed and
> which are not… regardless of the choice, this seems rather unintuitive
> to discover without many paragraphs of documentation that basically
> duplicates the code in prose text.
Now is this 5 repos with 1 version each, or 2 repos with 2 versions plus
1 repo with 1 version, or 1 repo with 5 versions, or 3 repos with 1
version plus 1 repo with 2 versions, or 1 repo with 1 version plus 1
repo with 4 versions?
Will --versions apply on a per-repo basis or globally?
We could go down a list of priorities until the number of desired
versions has been reached, that could include: Installed, Candidate,
Candidate-1, Installed+1, Installed-1, Candidate-2, Installed+2,
Installed-2, et cetera, et cetera
> Again, what would this achieve and what is the use case for this?
Likely the same or similar reasons --no-all-versions already exists, for
one to limit the clutter and undesirable information on our screens, et
cetera, et cetera.
> Sidenote: If a specific task has no people interested in working on it,
There're categories for such tasks such as "closed" or "wontfix" et
cetera, et cetera, none of which apply to this request as of yet.
> Either create a compelling new task referencing related ones
Such was of course considered but this path was chosen in our infinite
wisdom. We're sure you'd've complained either way, saying it's a
duplicate and how kilobytes of bandwidth and storage were wasted,
right? Et cetera, et cetera.
> or much better yet do work on it yourself.
Our time is quite limited and you're blessed to have received this much
of it already.
> Its open source after all and nothing will ever get done if everyone
> hopes someone else will do it.
It is? -squints- Our Gods! You're right, all this time wasted sharing
our ideas for improvements when we could've just done it ourselves,
silly us! Why are there even mailing lists?
Decades of work, lost! The travesty! Just think where we could be by
now, et cetera, et cetera...
Fax mentis incendium gloriæ culpum et cetera, et cetera...
Memor bis punitor delicatum!
> Best regards
You sure?
