On 18/01/16 01:00, Andrew Gregory wrote: > On 01/17/16 at 05:00am, Eric Toombs wrote: >> So perhaps the switch isn't strictly necessary, but it's much easier to >> use. Your method requires knowledge of how pacman is implemented and >> could change as pacman's implementation is changed. I'd definitely >> rather use the --bell switch I implemented. > > Please bottom-post. > > I don't think this is an unreasonable feature request so I don't mind > if Allan wants to accept it, but as far as I can tell you are the only > one interested in it. Personally, I'm not inclined to add features > when the desired effect can already be achieved using existing > features and only one person seems want it.
I do not have a strong opinion on the inclusion/exclusion of this feature. Given it is zero effort to maintain and adds no overhead, I am leaning towards accepting. But this will need to wait for pacman > 5.0 Allan
