[pacman-dev] [PATCH] Put not explicitly installed packages in grey during update/install/removall

[Allan McRae]

On 05/02/14 10:34, Jason St. John wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 12:45 AM, Allan McRae <allan at archlinux.org> wrote:
>> On 03/02/14 15:34, Jason St. John wrote:
>>> On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 8:45 AM, Guillaume Bouchard
>>> <guillaume.bouchard at liris.cnrs.fr> wrote:
>>>>> That colour cases the dependencies to stand out more on a terminal with
>>>>> a white background.  I'd say bold would be better...
>>>>
>>>> ;) I agree on that part. I guess the best idea must be to create a
>>>> color class for depend and for explicit so that changing it latter may
>>>> be easier.
>>>>
>>>>> However, the colour coding really is unclear.  How do people come into
>>>>> the knowledge of what it means?  For example, during an update I might
>>>>> think that a new package being pulled in as a dependency so it is
>>>>> highlighted.   Or is it entirely obvious and I am thinking too hard?
>>>
>>> I agree that this would not be obvious to users.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> You are right. Perhaps a caption, like:
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> $ sudo pacman -Su
>>>> :: Starting full system upgrade...
>>>> resolving dependencies...
>>>> looking for inter-conflicts...
>>>>
>>>> Packages (21): **(Explict packages appears in bold)**
>>>>
>>>> Name                              Old Version     New Version      Net
>>>> Change  Download Size
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> Total Download Size:    154.72 MiB
>>>> Total Installed Size:   491.30 MiB
>>>> Net Upgrade Size:       -1.28 MiB
>>>>
>>>> :: Proceed with installation? [Y/n]
>>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> ?
>>>>
>>>> (I had never though a *so simple* hack would generate so much discussion ;)
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Guillaume
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't like the idea of a caption that says something like
>>> "explicitly installed packages appear in bold".
>>>
>>> An extra column would be better than a caption, but I don't know how
>>> everyone feels about that...
>>>
>>> I see three ways of doing this with a column:
>>> 1.) have a column title of "Explicitly Installed?" with a "yes" or
>>> "no" label for each package, optionally coloring the "yes" or "no"
>>> text for easy reading
>>> 2.) like the first way, but put an asterisk if the package is
>>> explicitly installed and leave it blank if the package is a dependency
>>> 3.) have a column title of "Installed..." with labels of "explicitly"
>>> or "as a dependency"
>>>
>>> Of those three, I think I prefer the second method.
>>>
>>
>> I'm not sure there is enough room for another column - especially not
>> with a title that long.
>>
>> Allan
>>
>>
> 
> Currently, the width of the verbose package list is 66 columns
> (checked with an update of "extra/firefox" and "community/lz4"). Each
> column uses two space characters between titles. If we, instead, make
> the title be "Dependency?" and we reverse the use of asterisks, the
> new width would be 79 columns (66 + 2 + 11). If we're targeting a max
> width of 80 columns, this would be just under the limit. For packages
> with long names and/or are in a repository with a long name (e.g.
> community), it would hit the max width pretty easily.
> 
> If this increase in width is too close to the maximum desired width,
> we will have to scrap the idea of using an additional column, and
> we'll have to think of another way to display this information.
> 

It is too long.

Allan