[pacman-dev] [PATCH v2] wip: pacman: rework the UI of -F

[Allan McRae]

On 21/4/19 5:40 am, Morgan Adamiec wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Apr 2019 at 19:38, morganamilo <morganamilo at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Reworks the UI of -F according to FS#47949
>>
>> In short -F replaces both -Fs and -Fo.
>> --regex/-x has been replaced with --search/-s.
>> --oneline/-o can be used to change the output format to match the old -Fo
>>
>> Signed-off-by: morganamilo <morganamilo at gmail.com>
>> ---
>>
>> v1:
>>         This patch is WIP. Functional changes made,
>>         documentation still needs to be changed.
>>
>>         Additionally I think https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/47949#comment143477
>>         Is a good idea and I will probably be included in v2
>>
>> v2:
>>         added --oneline/-o
>>

<snip>

>>
> 
> I'm finally gonna get around to finishing this. Hopefully every one is
> fine with how --oneline/-o works.
> Although I have been thinking that maybe -o should be the default and
> some other flag could be used for a verbose mode.
> Also thought's on having -F automatically search path like -Qo?
> 

Sorry for the delayed review.  This is a very busy month for me and work.


I'm don't think we need a unified output for -F here.   We are
essentially switching between the old -Fs and -Fo search when there is a
"/" in the search.

This can be see by running:

$ ./src/pacman/pacman -F opt
extra/llvm 8.0.0-2
    usr/bin/opt
...

$ ./src/pacman/pacman -F opt/
core/filesystem 2018.12-2 (base) [installed]
    opt/
...

So keeping the old output based on which search is being used seems a
good solution.  This keeps the output in line with -Qs and -Qo, while
simplifying the options and would solve the main issue with this change.

I am also against changing -x to -s because we are only removing -s in
this release.  That would give a big behaviour change when -s without
notification (assuming someone did not read the changelog).  Not
changing -x would mean removing -s and -o will give errors when people
try using them.

Allan