Scott Horowitz wrote:
On 3/30/07, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:
On a side note, what do you guys think about "optdepends"? <http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/6626>
If we pick a name now, we can worry about implementation details later. But it would be interesting to have this kind of thing. I did find, way back in Flyspray, a request for this same kind of thing that was closed by Judd because he thought it was unnecessary. I feel like things may have changed enough since then, but I don't know for sure.
I personally dislike optdepends because it doesn't make sense to me. If something is optional, it's not a dependency; if it's a dependency, it's not optional. I'd go with either "optional" or, as mentioned in FS, "suggests".
But everyone is going to have an opinion ;-) I think every user would appreciate this feature implemented, the name is less important.
Scott
'suggests' would be my preference, because pacman will suggest you install the packages :) my opinion on the ideas in FS#6626... ranking - no list during install - yes option to install - probably, I like Roman Kyrylych's suggestion (http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/4845#comment10357) Andrew