This is a patch to make Pacman only ask for confirmation if anything different from what the user requested (i.e. dependencies) is going to be installed. Since the user took the time to type out "pacman -Sy foo", they obviously did want foo installed, and it really wouldn't make sense to ask them this again unless something else will be installed.
On Dec 28, 2007 2:19 PM, mmiikkee13@gmail.com wrote:
This is a patch to make Pacman only ask for confirmation if anything different from what the user requested (i.e. dependencies) is going to be installed. Since the user took the time to type out "pacman -Sy foo", they obviously did want foo installed, and it really wouldn't make sense to ask them this again unless something else will be installed.
I like this. It's akin to the fact that pacman -R foo doesn't prompt you.
(How crazy is that? Removing a package doesn't prompt you but installing a package does.)
Scott
On Dec 28, 2007 7:16 PM, Scott Horowitz stonecrest@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 28, 2007 2:19 PM, mmiikkee13@gmail.com wrote:
This is a patch to make Pacman only ask for confirmation if anything different from what the user requested (i.e. dependencies) is going to be installed. Since the user took the time to type out "pacman -Sy foo", they obviously did want foo installed, and it really wouldn't make sense to ask them this again unless something else will be installed.
I like this. It's akin to the fact that pacman -R foo doesn't prompt you.
(How crazy is that? Removing a package doesn't prompt you but installing a package does.)
-R never resolves dependencies. -A/-U never resolve dependencies. -S *does* resolve dependencies. Thus the difference.
I like the idea, although I may disagree that people expect it to be installed immediately instead of getting confirmation. Did you test this in the replaces case? Something like pkgA replaces pkgB, you have pkgB installed, and you run 'pacman -S pkgA'. I'd be caught awfully off guard if pacman just went ahead in this case, but the target list wouldn't grow so I'm guessing your patch would have unintended consequences here.
Thoughts from the rest of the crew?
-Dan
Dan McGee wrote:
On Dec 28, 2007 7:16 PM, Scott Horowitz stonecrest@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 28, 2007 2:19 PM, mmiikkee13@gmail.com wrote:
This is a patch to make Pacman only ask for confirmation if anything different from what the user requested (i.e. dependencies) is going to be installed. Since the user took the time to type out "pacman -Sy foo", they obviously did want foo installed, and it really wouldn't make sense to ask them this again unless something else will be installed.
I like this. It's akin to the fact that pacman -R foo doesn't prompt you.
(How crazy is that? Removing a package doesn't prompt you but installing a package does.)
-R never resolves dependencies. -A/-U never resolve dependencies. -S *does* resolve dependencies. Thus the difference.
I like the idea, although I may disagree that people expect it to be installed immediately instead of getting confirmation. Did you test this in the replaces case? Something like pkgA replaces pkgB, you have pkgB installed, and you run 'pacman -S pkgA'. I'd be caught awfully off guard if pacman just went ahead in this case, but the target list wouldn't grow so I'm guessing your patch would have unintended consequences here.
Thoughts from the rest of the crew?
-Dan
pacman-dev mailing list pacman-dev@archlinux.org http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev
Good point - I didn't think about that. I just quickly read through some of the pacman code before doing this - I still don't completely understand it. If there's an alpm_list_compare or something like that, that would be better. But that's a job for someone else, as I'd probably break something :-)
(Just a note: I tested this with a package with no deps, 2 packages with no deps, a package with deps and a package without, and a package with deps. I didn't even think of replacements.)
On Dec 28, 2007 7:33 PM, Dan McGee dpmcgee@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 28, 2007 7:16 PM, Scott Horowitz stonecrest@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 28, 2007 2:19 PM, mmiikkee13@gmail.com wrote:
This is a patch to make Pacman only ask for confirmation if anything different from what the user requested (i.e. dependencies) is going to be installed. Since the user took the time to type out "pacman -Sy foo", they obviously did want foo installed, and it really wouldn't make sense to ask them this again unless something else will be installed.
I like this. It's akin to the fact that pacman -R foo doesn't prompt you.
(How crazy is that? Removing a package doesn't prompt you but installing a package does.)
-R never resolves dependencies. -A/-U never resolve dependencies. -S *does* resolve dependencies. Thus the difference.
I like the idea, although I may disagree that people expect it to be installed immediately instead of getting confirmation. Did you test this in the replaces case? Something like pkgA replaces pkgB, you have pkgB installed, and you run 'pacman -S pkgA'. I'd be caught awfully off guard if pacman just went ahead in this case, but the target list wouldn't grow so I'm guessing your patch would have unintended consequences here.
Thoughts from the rest of the crew?
I'm with Dan here. As long as it's only doing what's requested (i.e. not replacing anything), then it's kosher.
On Sat, Dec 29, 2007 at 1:36 AM, Aaron Griffin aaronmgriffin@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 28, 2007 7:33 PM, Dan McGee dpmcgee@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 28, 2007 7:16 PM, Scott Horowitz stonecrest@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 28, 2007 2:19 PM, mmiikkee13@gmail.com wrote:
This is a patch to make Pacman only ask for confirmation if anything different from what the user requested (i.e. dependencies) is going to be installed. Since the user took the time to type out "pacman -Sy foo", they obviously did want foo installed, and it really wouldn't make sense to ask them this again unless something else will be installed.
I like this. It's akin to the fact that pacman -R foo doesn't prompt you.
(How crazy is that? Removing a package doesn't prompt you but installing a package does.)
-R never resolves dependencies. -A/-U never resolve dependencies. -S *does* resolve dependencies. Thus the difference.
I like the idea, although I may disagree that people expect it to be installed immediately instead of getting confirmation. Did you test this in the replaces case? Something like pkgA replaces pkgB, you have pkgB installed, and you run 'pacman -S pkgA'. I'd be caught awfully off guard if pacman just went ahead in this case, but the target list wouldn't grow so I'm guessing your patch would have unintended consequences here.
Thoughts from the rest of the crew?
I'm with Dan here. As long as it's only doing what's requested (i.e. not replacing anything), then it's kosher.
Ping? It was email cleanup night here and I came across this.
-Dan
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 07:56:59PM -0500, Dan McGee wrote:
Ping? It was email cleanup night here and I came across this.
-Dan
Well, I don't find it very interesting, but if someone else want to do it, it probably requires a full comparision between packages and targets list to be safe (not just the size), and also it would have to deal with the repo/pkg syntax, as Nagy mentioned today for another part.
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 7:56 PM, Dan McGee dpmcgee@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Dec 29, 2007 at 1:36 AM, Aaron Griffin aaronmgriffin@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 28, 2007 7:33 PM, Dan McGee dpmcgee@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 28, 2007 7:16 PM, Scott Horowitz stonecrest@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 28, 2007 2:19 PM, mmiikkee13@gmail.com wrote:
This is a patch to make Pacman only ask for confirmation if anything different from what the user requested (i.e. dependencies) is going to be installed. Since the user took the time to type out "pacman -Sy foo", they obviously did want foo installed, and it really wouldn't make sense to ask them this again unless something else will be installed.
I like this. It's akin to the fact that pacman -R foo doesn't prompt you.
(How crazy is that? Removing a package doesn't prompt you but installing a package does.)
-R never resolves dependencies. -A/-U never resolve dependencies. -S *does* resolve dependencies. Thus the difference.
I like the idea, although I may disagree that people expect it to be installed immediately instead of getting confirmation. Did you test this in the replaces case? Something like pkgA replaces pkgB, you have pkgB installed, and you run 'pacman -S pkgA'. I'd be caught awfully off guard if pacman just went ahead in this case, but the target list wouldn't grow so I'm guessing your patch would have unintended consequences here.
Thoughts from the rest of the crew?
I'm with Dan here. As long as it's only doing what's requested (i.e. not replacing anything), then it's kosher.
Ping? It was email cleanup night here and I came across this.
I think my original sentiment still stands. apt-get does the same thing: if I am installing 'pkgfoo' and there are no deps, and only pkgfoo is to be installed, it skips the yes/no step.
I think my original sentiment still stands. apt-get does the same thing: if I am installing 'pkgfoo' and there are no deps, and only pkgfoo is to be installed, it skips the yes/no step.
Well, I don't know. This would be a bit disturbing to me (sometimes I must confirm, sometimes I needn't). And I like the current behavior: I check the download size etc. then I confirm.
---------------------------------------------------- SZTE Egyetemi Könyvtár - http://www.bibl.u-szeged.hu This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/
2008/3/12, Nagy Gabor ngaba@bibl.u-szeged.hu:
I think my original sentiment still stands. apt-get does the same thing: if I am installing 'pkgfoo' and there are no deps, and only pkgfoo is to be installed, it skips the yes/no step.
Well, I don't know. This would be a bit disturbing to me (sometimes I must confirm, sometimes I needn't). And I like the current behavior: I check the download size etc. then I confirm.
I've used to the same behaviour.
pacman-dev@lists.archlinux.org