[pacman-dev] [PATCH] Add new -Sq / --needed option.

Xavier shiningxc at gmail.com
Sat Nov 24 14:38:29 EST 2007

On Sat, Nov 24, 2007 at 02:55:24PM +0100, Nagy Gabor wrote:
> Wow, you are really active now. Great, I like this feature.
> Now I will be an asshole (please don't kill me;-):
> 1. Personally I would have kept the current behaviour (ask for user, he may
> answer mixed answers), and add an option for both "answer-yes" and "answer-no".
> Because usually when I get this question (copy-paste from wiki ;-), my reaction
> is ctrl-c (<=> I want to do answer-no)...
> 2. This will be a contra for my -Ru patch too:
> This should be handled in front-end's callback.c imho (to keep libalpm as
> flexible as possible), and that should answer the question automatically. This
> is similar to ask, but new command-line options for each question-type is much
> clearer imho.
> 3. I go further: Even remove_cascade and remove_unneeded should be done in
> front-end. This could be an "interactive" remove-dependency-error resolving:
> "Removal of foo would break the bar dependency of baz."
> "Do you want to keep foo?" [REMOVE_UNNEDED answers yes, default answer no], if
> the answer was no:
> "Do you want to also remove baz?" [REMOVE_CASCADE answers yes, default: no]...
> if the answer was no: depcheck error
> What's more, this can be handy in case of resolvedeps, this would help pacman
> (== user) choose a proper satisfier.
> "To-be-installed foo has an unsatisfied dependency bar. Baz satisfies bar. Do
> you want to install baz?" [default answer: yes; optional: no <- no dependency
> resolve, BUT exit with error; optional: prompt to user <- user can find his
> favourite dependency]....
> Well, this mail may be a bit chaotic (random new ideas in my mind), sry.

Handling this in callback.c might be a good idea, I don't know.
If you believe it is, please provide a patch, it'll be easier to judge it :)

More information about the pacman-dev mailing list