[pacman-dev] [PATCH] Don't ask for install confirmation if no dependencies

[Dan McGee]

On Sat, Dec 29, 2007 at 1:36 AM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Dec 28, 2007 7:33 PM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee at gmail.com> wrote:
>  > On Dec 28, 2007 7:16 PM, Scott Horowitz <stonecrest at gmail.com> wrote:
>  > >
>  > > On Dec 28, 2007 2:19 PM,  <mmiikkee13 at 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