[pacman-dev] [PATCH v3 0/2] Make -Fs behave like -Ss and output group-membership and installation-state
I realized that in my previous patch[1] I totally forgot about groups. Reading through the bugtracker I also realized there's already a task open on it FS#47948. This patchset Includes the install status and the group status patches. PS. I'm not too sure on what to do when adding a patch to an existing one. Should I have resent the first? Should this be v3 or v1? If anyone can clear that up I'd appreciate it. [1] https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2018-August/022769.html morganamilo (2): Show install status during file search Show group status during file search src/pacman/files.c | 7 ++++++- src/pacman/package.c | 34 +++++++++++++++++++--------------- src/pacman/package.h | 1 + 3 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) -- 2.18.0
When doing "pacman -Fs", show the "[installed: version]"
message just like "pacman -Ss".
Signed-off-by: morganamilo
When doing "pacman -Fs", show the "(groupname)"
message just like "pacman -Ss".
And refactor group printing to its own function.
Signed-off-by: morganamilo
When doing "pacman -Fs", show the "(groupname)"
message just like "pacman -Ss".
And refactor group printing to its own function.
Signed-off-by: morganamilo
On 4/9/18 11:47 pm, morganamilo wrote:
When doing "pacman -Fs", show the "(groupname)" message just like "pacman -Ss".
And refactor group printing to its own function.
Signed-off-by: morganamilo
---
Thanks. Normally I'd prefer two patches. The first being the refactor, and the second adding the groupnames to the -Fs output. It just splits the patch intention up and makes it easier to follow. But given the second one would be a single line patch, I am not worried in this instance. A
On 9/3/18 6:50 PM, morganamilo wrote:
I realized that in my previous patch[1] I totally forgot about groups. Reading through the bugtracker I also realized there's already a task open on it FS#47948.
This patchset Includes the install status and the group status patches.
PS. I'm not too sure on what to do when adding a patch to an existing one. Should I have resent the first? Should this be v3 or v1? If anyone can clear that up I'd appreciate it.
[1] https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2018-August/022769.html No need to resubmit the old one at all :D just send in the second patch on its own.
I guess that this depends on the previous one, so you could simply mention that. Or git format-patch has a fancy option, -n --start-number 2 which would make the subject be patch [PATCH 2/2], and you could send that in reply to the previous patch. -- Eli Schwartz Bug Wrangler and Trusted User
participants (3)
-
Allan McRae
-
Eli Schwartz
-
morganamilo