[pacman-dev] pacman-disowned

郑文辉(Techlive Zheng) techlivezheng at gmail.com
Fri Oct 4 13:26:46 EDT 2013

2013/10/4 Jeremy Heiner <scalaprotractor at gmail.com>:
> I'm using -Qkkk right now (easy hack, minimal footprint), but like the
> output format that can easily be tweaked.
> One reason I keep associating this new find untracked feature with the
> existing '--check's is that they are algorithmic cousins. From the
> controller (query.c) point of view these 3 features are called in
> basically identical ways. And from the implementation (check.c) view
> they all have the same shape (for each file in list call 1 or more
> predicates). However, I'm definitely not implying that implementation
> details should dictate user interface.
> But there seems to be a deeper reason. It's rooted in the use case.
> Consider what actions the user must do to achieve the goal. At a
> minimum(*) they must invoke pacman twice. Just -Qk isn't enough
> because it ignores the mtrees. And just -Qkk checks nothing for
> packages without an mtree. Am I wrong to think that adding another
> step is the wrong direction to go to help the user achieve their goal?
> So I want to advocate for a solution that does all the steps in a
> single invocation. I don't want to remove the ability to run the steps
> independently. In fact, I think it makes a lot of sense for the output
> of the single invocation to be very terse, providing the 10,000 foot
> view, and the user needs to re-invoke (w/ different args) for more
> detail on any problems noted in the overview.
> (*)Are there other steps that should be folded in? My brain is so down
> in the weeds of the implementation right now that I don't completely
> trust my view of the trees, much less the forest.

Yeah, I second your propose, I used to combine `find` and `pacman -Qo`
to accomplish this, but it is too time consuming, being able to have
this as a built-in feature and an option would be really great.

More information about the pacman-dev mailing list