allan at archlinux.org
Fri Oct 4 00:40:26 EDT 2013
On 04/10/13 09:48, Jeremy Heiner wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 10:38 PM, Allan McRae <allan at archlinux.org> wrote:
>> I am very against that style of output. I want it to be clear what the
>> change is without having to decipher a code.
> Like I said, the output format isn't something I've put much thought
> into. The "ls -l" style is just something that is so ubiquitous that I
> thought it would be easy to grok. Any suggestions for a style of
> output would be great. But, perhaps, discussing output format might be
> a bit premature.
> The thing I want to put thinking time into right now is the use case
> scenario. The motivation. Part of system maintenance should be
> comparing pacman's idea of the filesystem with the actual contents of
> the filesystem. And part of that is keeping an eye out for stray files
> in managed dirs. I've identified check.c as the place for this as it
> already iterates over the package files and mtrees. Details like
> output format can be settled later. But are there any major pitfalls
> here that I am just not seeing? (It certainly wouldn't be the first
> time that's happened to me ;)
OK... I am mildly convinced that this should be part of pacman rather
than in a separate tool.
But, I do not think it should be part of -Qk or -Qkk. These check that
what is listed in the local database is correct. Looking for untracked
files is a separate task and should be treated as such.
More information about the pacman-dev