On 2006-12-06, Alan McKinnon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Because some equery commands search for packages (ideally
>>> suited for a regex), and others by design operate on a single
>>> package (where using regexes don't make any sense).
>>
>> But that differentiation seems purely artificial. What is
>> there about the "print size" operation that makes it something
>> you can't or shouldn't do on multiple packages? Why shouldn't
>> the operation of "pkgspec" and "command" be orthogonal?
>> "pkgspec" selects zero or more packages and the command
>> operates on the selected package.
>
> It should, but alas it doesn't. It was coded that way.
>
>> Why the limitation that some commands only operate on one
>> package?
>
> Because the dev decided to do it that way.
>
>> > It all makes perfect sense when you realize this, but no-one
>> > expects you to realize it immediately :-)
>>
>> Well, it seems pretty non-intuitive and non-orthogonal to me. I
>> guess that's a result of many years of shell usage where
>> commands like "rm" and "ls" work equally well on a single file
>> or multiple files.
>
> There's only one way you are going to get equery to behave
> like you want - become the maintainer and code it like you
> want.
I know. :) However, for most of what I want to do, the "q"
utils seem much closer to the mark.
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! BARBARA STANWYCK
at makes me nervous!!
visi.com
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
