[pacman-dev] [PATCH] Add support for passing --unrequired twice (for optdep)
allan at archlinux.org
Sun Jun 16 21:05:47 EDT 2013
On 16/06/13 21:14, jjacky wrote:
> On 06/16/13 11:57, Allan McRae wrote:
>> On 15/06/13 22:07, Olivier Brunel wrote:
>>> Passing two -t will restrict or filter output to packages also not set as
>>> optional dependency by any installed package.
>>> Makes it easy to spot potentially useless packages using -Qdttq
>>> Signed-off-by: Olivier Brunel <i.am.jack.mail at gmail.com>
>>> doc/pacman.8.txt | 4 +++-
>>> src/pacman/pacman.c | 2 +-
>>> src/pacman/query.c | 11 ++++++++---
>>> 3 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>> diff --git a/doc/pacman.8.txt b/doc/pacman.8.txt
>>> index 1cc1eaa..6abd491 100644
>>> --- a/doc/pacman.8.txt
>>> +++ b/doc/pacman.8.txt
>>> @@ -314,7 +314,9 @@ Query Options[[QO]]
>>> *-t, \--unrequired*::
>>> Restrict or filter output to packages not required by any currently
>>> - installed package.
>>> + installed package. Passing two '--unrequired' or '-t' flags will restrict or
>>> + filter output to packages also not set as optional dependency by any
>>> + currently installed package.
>> I'd prefer the opposite:
>> *-t, \--unrequired*::
>> Restrict or filter output to packages not required or optionally
>> required by any currently installed package. Specify this option twice
>> to only filter packages that are direct dependencies (i.e. do not filter
>> optional dependencies).
> Sure, quick question then: Should the help string (on -Qh) be modified
> to reflect this change?
> If so, I'm not sure how best to quickly describe it; this removes the
> "of any package" bit, but it should still be clear?
> "list packages not direct/opt (-tt direct only) dependencies [filter]"
Go over two lines:
-t, --unrequired list packages not (optionally) required by any
package (-tt to ignore optdepends) [filter]
More information about the pacman-dev