[pacman-dev] Optdepends (was: 3.2 RC release)
On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 12:14 PM, Nagy Gabor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One last problem : the pacman.conf needs to be updated. Most important points : 1) remove unstable mirror section 2) add SyncFirst This may be an overkill, but this can be mentioned in .INSTALL file too, because user may omit pacman.conf.pacnew. Or give a general message: New options were added to pacman.conf, please check pacman.conf.pacnew (if it exists) and pacman.conf manual for details Well I am not sure Dan would like that after what he said here : http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2008-July/007136.html I have a completely different opinion. IMHO the current OptDepends is totally _useless_: who checks them with -Qi or -Si?! Personally I have no clue which packages have optional dependencies. I agree with Dan, that optdepends shouldn't be put to install file (they will be hidden after package install), but I like that they are listed. I think pacman should automatically print them during package install. (Here we have formatting/localisation difficulties) This behaviour could be disabled (to satisfy Dan ;-). Bye ___ pacman-dev mailing list pacman-dev@archlinux.org http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev
Re: [pacman-dev] Optdepends (was: 3.2 RC release)
On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 2:12 PM, Nagy Gabor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 12:14 PM, Nagy Gabor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One last problem : the pacman.conf needs to be updated. Most important points : 1) remove unstable mirror section 2) add SyncFirst This may be an overkill, but this can be mentioned in .INSTALL file too, because user may omit pacman.conf.pacnew. Or give a general message: New options were added to pacman.conf, please check pacman.conf.pacnew (if it exists) and pacman.conf manual for details Well I am not sure Dan would like that after what he said here : http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2008-July/007136.html I have a completely different opinion. IMHO the current OptDepends is totally _useless_: who checks them with -Qi or -Si?! Personally I have no clue which packages have optional dependencies. I agree with Dan, that optdepends shouldn't be put to install file (they will be hidden after package install), but I like that they are listed. I think pacman should automatically print them during package install. (Here we have formatting/localisation difficulties) This behaviour could be disabled (to satisfy Dan ;-). I didn't say don't print anything, I was striking out against the renegade install messages that continued to grow more and more obtrusive. I'm fine with a patch that prints optdepends on package install (and probably also on upgrade if they differ from the previously installed version's list). -Dan ___ pacman-dev mailing list pacman-dev@archlinux.org http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev
Re: [pacman-dev] Optdepends (was: 3.2 RC release)
On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 9:12 PM, Nagy Gabor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well I am not sure Dan would like that after what he said here : http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2008-July/007136.html I have a completely different opinion. IMHO the current OptDepends is totally _useless_: who checks them with -Qi or -Si?! Personally I have no clue which packages have optional dependencies. I agree with Dan, that optdepends shouldn't be put to install file (they will be hidden after package install), but I like that they are listed. I think pacman should automatically print them during package install. (Here we have formatting/localisation difficulties) This behaviour could be disabled (to satisfy Dan ;-). I think I was not very clear and transformed Dan's words too much. I just talked with him and we agree on these two things : 1) printing optdepends is fine. I actually asked an user to write a feature request : http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/10630 , and I even assigned it to me. But then I ran into annoying problems. Please help, since you care about this issue. 2) messages like check .pacnew file for new options are useless. pacman already prints a warning when extracting pacnew files anyway. And you said yourself it might be overkill, so it shouldn't be a problem. ___ pacman-dev mailing list pacman-dev@archlinux.org http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev
