[pacman-dev] [PATCH] Add short options for mark as deps or explicit

[Allan McRae]

On 07/03/13 15:30, Andrew Gregory wrote:
> On 03/07/13 at 02:51pm, Allan McRae wrote:
>> On 07/03/13 06:31, Dan McGee wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 2:19 PM, William Giokas <1007380 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 02:03:14AM +0100, Sébastien Luttringer wrote:
>>>>> The main (only) purpose of -D is to be able to change packages installation
>>>>> status (deps or explicit). Having a short form offer a similar experience that
>>>>> other main pacman option (e.g. Su).
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Sébastien Luttringer <seblu at seblu.net>
>>>>
>>>> The --asdeps option for -S and -U does not have a shortopt. In my
>>>> worthess opinion, this is a bad idea, as -d for those operations is
>>>> --nodeps.
>>>
>>> This was my thought as well. If we are willing to use a shortopt, it
>>> should apply to ALL top-level operations in the same fashion (or be
>>> rejected completely), and not mislead. -Q/--query match this criteria,
>>> but currently -d for -U/-S would be totally unexpected. So -1 from me.
>>>
>>> I have consciously made decisions over the past 3 years to not add new
>>> shortopts unless they are universally applicable, so this would be a
>>> step against that. If we were to do this, we would want to remove the
>>> -d shortopt for --nodeps in the next release, and then add these in
>>> the following release. However, this is cumbersome as `--nodeps
>>> --nodeps` is really silly to type out as we allow this option to be
>>> passed twice for even more dep-ignoring behavior.
>>>
>>
>> I made the decision to take this based on:
>>
>> 1) it would be good to have a short options
>> 2) the short letters made sense
>> 3) the current usage of -d/-e in -Q is fairly similar
>> 4) the current usage of -d in -S is an operation that is unrelated to -D
>> so will not cause confusion.
>>
>>
>> People manage to understand that -Sd is different from -Qd.  Why the
>> need to enforce consistency when there is already none?
>>
>> Allan
> 
> I think that the problem is not just that -d means different things for
> different operations, but that --asdeps and --asexplicit shorten differently
> based on the operation.  A user would likely see that --asdeps shortens to -d
> with -D and assume it to do the same for -S because --asdeps is a valid option
> there too.  A short option may mean different things for different operations,
> but all operations that accept a particular long option should use the same
> short option for it.
> 

OK.  I separate out the --asdep for -S/-U and -D mentally because they
are doing completely different things.  But I see the point.

Patch denied.

Allan