On 04/10/13 09:48, Jeremy Heiner wrote:
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 10:38 PM, Allan McRae
wrote: I am very against that style of output. I want it to be clear what the change is without having to decipher a code.
Like I said, the output format isn't something I've put much thought into. The "ls -l" style is just something that is so ubiquitous that I thought it would be easy to grok. Any suggestions for a style of output would be great. But, perhaps, discussing output format might be a bit premature.
The thing I want to put thinking time into right now is the use case scenario. The motivation. Part of system maintenance should be comparing pacman's idea of the filesystem with the actual contents of the filesystem. And part of that is keeping an eye out for stray files in managed dirs. I've identified check.c as the place for this as it already iterates over the package files and mtrees. Details like output format can be settled later. But are there any major pitfalls here that I am just not seeing? (It certainly wouldn't be the first time that's happened to me ;)
OK... I am mildly convinced that this should be part of pacman rather than in a separate tool. But, I do not think it should be part of -Qk or -Qkk. These check that what is listed in the local database is correct. Looking for untracked files is a separate task and should be treated as such. Allan