Bug#466971: dpkg [dpkg] lists output of option -L in alphabetical order
Jari Aalto writes (Bug#466971: dpkg [dpkg] lists output of option -L in alphabetical order): The -L listing is very ofter used to check where are the files in the package. For human consumption, the alphabetical order is very important. Any other order is distracting. Yes, I agree. Fri 2008-02-22 Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] INBOX I think the right answer is for dpkg -L to sort its output (perhaps with an option to suppress this if desired). The other way round. Please make the sorted listing the default, and add separate option to list the RAW order[*] I think you must have misunderstood me. That's exactly what I meant. (To `suppress' something is to make it not happen, so if I say `perhaps with an option to suppress [sorting]' I mean that there will be an option to get unsorted output and implicitly the sorted output is the default.) Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#466971: dpkg [dpkg] lists output of option -L in alphabetical order
* Fri 2008-02-22 Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] INBOX Raphael Hertzog writes Rather the rest of the man pages are detached from the one marked with !... and they are detached because they are symlinks. Symlinks always appear at the end dpkg -L prints the files in the order they are in the file lists in the dpkg databases. The files are in the database in the order that they came in the package, and I think it would be bad to perturb that (although I haven't thought it through carefully). The files are in the package in that order so that when a symlink is installed by atomic rename during unpack, the file which it refers to already exists. The -L listing is very ofter used to check where are the files in the package. For human consumption, the alphabetical order is very important. Any other order is distracting. I think the right answer is for dpkg -L to sort its output (perhaps with an option to suppress this if desired). The other way round. Please make the sorted listing the default, and add separate option to list the RAW order[*] [*] On top of my head, I don't know what program would benefit from the raw listing, because it would still need to test [ -h $path ] to determine if any of those are symlinks or not. Jari -- Welcome to FOSS revolution: we fix and modify until it shines -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#466971: dpkg [dpkg] lists output of option -L in alphabetical order
Package: dpkg Version: 1.14.16.6 Severity: minor Please adjust the option -L so that the listing is presented alphabetically. In example below, the maekrd line ! is detached from the rest of the manpages. $ dpkg -L cvsutils /. /usr /usr/bin /usr/bin/cvsco /usr/bin/cvsdiscard /usr/bin/cvspurge /usr/bin/cvstrim /usr/bin/cvsu /usr/bin/cvsdo /usr/bin/cvschroot /usr/bin/cvsnotag /usr/share /usr/share/man /usr/share/man/man1 ! /usr/share/man/man1/cvsutils.1.gz /usr/share/doc /usr/share/doc/cvsutils /usr/share/doc/cvsutils/changelog.gz /usr/share/doc/cvsutils/NEWS.gz /usr/share/doc/cvsutils/AUTHORS /usr/share/doc/cvsutils/TODO /usr/share/doc/cvsutils/THANKS /usr/share/doc/cvsutils/copyright /usr/share/doc/cvsutils/changelog.Debian.gz /usr/share/doc/cvsutils/README.gz /usr/share/man/man1/cvsdo.1.gz /usr/share/man/man1/cvsu.1.gz /usr/share/man/man1/cvstrim.1.gz /usr/share/man/man1/cvsco.1.gz /usr/share/man/man1/cvspurge.1.gz /usr/share/man/man1/cvschroot.1.gz /usr/share/man/man1/cvsdiscard.1.gz /usr/share/man/man1/cvsnotag.1.gz -- System Information: Debian Release: lenny/sid APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable') Architecture: i386 (i686) Kernel: Linux 2.6.22-2-686 (SMP w/1 CPU core) Locale: LANG=en_DK.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_DK.UTF-8 (charmap=ISO-8859-1) (ignored: LC_ALL set to en_US) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash Versions of packages dpkg depends on: ii coreutils 6.10-3 The GNU core utilities ii libc6 2.7-8 GNU C Library: Shared libraries dpkg recommends no packages. -- no debconf information -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#466971: dpkg [dpkg] lists output of option -L in alphabetical order
user [EMAIL PROTECTED] usertag 466971 dpkg-query severity 466971 wishlist retitle 466971 dpkg-query -L should sort the file list thanks On Fri, 22 Feb 2008, Jari Aalto wrote: Package: dpkg Version: 1.14.16.6 Severity: minor Please adjust the option -L so that the listing is presented alphabetically. In example below, the maekrd line ! is detached from the rest of the manpages. Rather the rest of the man pages are detached from the one marked with !... and they are detached because they are symlinks. Symlinks always appear at the end of dpkg -L. I don't know if there's a good reason for this or if this is simply an implementation detail that leacks into the user interface. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Le best-seller français mis à jour pour Debian Etch : http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/
Bug#466971: dpkg [dpkg] lists output of option -L in alphabetical order
Raphael Hertzog writes (Bug#466971: dpkg [dpkg] lists output of option -L in alphabetical order): Rather the rest of the man pages are detached from the one marked with !... and they are detached because they are symlinks. Symlinks always appear at the end of dpkg -L. I don't know if there's a good reason for this or if this is simply an implementation detail that leacks into the user interface. dpkg -L prints the files in the order they are in the file lists in the dpkg databases. The files are in the database in the order that they came in the package, and I think it would be bad to perturb that (although I haven't thought it through carefully). The files are in the package in that order so that when a symlink is installed by atomic rename during unpack, the file which it refers to already exists. I think the right answer is for dpkg -L to sort its output (perhaps with an option to suppress this if desired). Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
