On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 5:16 AM, Xyne<x...@archlinux.ca> wrote: >> --print-pkg and --print-uris looks good to me >> >> but would you keep your new feature on top of these two options : >> --print-pkg and --print-uris only show non-download packages >> --print-pkg --print-pkg and --print-uris --print-uris show all >> ? >> >> an alternative : >> what if we added the download size when ShowSize is used? >> >> pacman -Sp fontconfig >> ftp://ftp.archlinux.org/extra/os/i686/fontconfig-2.4.2-1.pkg.tar.gz [1234] >> pacman -Spq fontconfig >> ftp://ftp.archlinux.org/extra/os/i686/fontconfig-2.4.2-1.pkg.tar.gz >> >> pacman -Sp ... | grep -v "\[0\]" | cut -d' ' -f1 >> ftp://ftp.archlinux.org/extra/os/i686/fontconfig-2.4.2-1.pkg.tar.gz > > > I'm trying to follow this right now but I haven't understood what > "non-download packages" vs "all" means. Can someone please refer me to > the discussion about this? I tried grepping the list but didn't find > anything. >
it just means package already downloaded, so packages for which the download size is 0. > Instead of adding several options, wouldn't it be possible to let "-p" > accept a string argument with formatting information similar to the way > the date command works. This would be extensible in the future and > could include the following interpretted sequences (among others) > > %u - url > %n - pkgname > %v - pkgver-pkgrel > %s - size > > I don't know how difficult it would be to code but that seems the most > elegant to me, rather than hardcoding the output format and having to > worry about extensibility and breakage in the future. > > This might not make sense though in terms of "non-download" vs "all" > but as pointed out, "-yy" and "-cc" mean "all", so "-pp" should too. > I'm not sure how the double flag would work with accepting an argument. > Maybe there should be an additional argument "--print-format" which > accepts the string, but then we're back to extra argument silliness > again (although that would enable "-p" to easily default to printing > URLs). > > As far as backwards compatibility with "--print-uris" goes, I would > suggest breaking it if a better solution is found. Holding back better > design because people can't slightly modify a few simple scripts is not > a valid justification imho. > hmm I think I like all these suggestions, I will give it a try :) It should indeed not break too much all scripts using -Sp. They might just need to switch to -Spp if they want all packages. and for a different output one could use -Sp or -Spp with an additional --print-format '%n' (then probably -p --print-uris needs to be renamed to -p --print)