On 22/06/2025 09:32, [email protected] wrote:
From: jhauga <[email protected]>
---
install.html | 7 ++++++-
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/install.html b/install.html
index 16206a06..4a9e54ff 100755
--- a/install.html
+++ b/install.html
@@ -72,7 +72,12 @@ full-featured as those package managers.</p>
<p>
Performing an automated installation can be done using the <code>-q</code> and
-<code>-P package1,package2,...</code> options.
+<code>-P <i>package1</i>,<i>package2</i>,<i>etc.</i></code> options.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Tip: if you have trouble with the <code>-P</code> option, try altering the
syntax
+i.e. <code>-P <i>package1</i> -P <i>package2</i> -P <i>etc</i></code>.
</p>
I'm not sure about this.
Firstly: This seems kind of like a bug report.
I know that the option parsing in setup can be picky and janky, but if
there are some situations where it doesn't work as expected, I need to
know about them before they can be fixed.
Secondly: We should document for setup generally that repeated options
are aggregated, but I'm not sure this is the place to do it.
Since this is a "question and answer"-style page, going into every
variation and detail needs to be balanced against providing the
information needed with the minimum cognitive load to the reader?
