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

[Sébastien Luttringer]

On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 6:32 AM, Allan McRae <allan at archlinux.org> wrote:
> 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.
>
ok, we can use -e to explicit deps, as it's not used on -S/-U/-D
(which have all --asexplicit).

-d is used by --nodeps, do you have a suggestion for a short option
for --asdeps?


-- 
Sébastien "Seblu" Luttringer
https://www.seblu.net
GPG: 0x2072D77A