On 04/24/16 at 06:20pm, Xavion wrote:
> >
> > So you do a "-Ss dropbox" and among the half dozen packages, you look
> > for the version number and not the pkgname to locate the entry?
> >
>
> Not usually in that case, because I know the exact name of the package I
> want (dropbox). However, if I'm uncertain of the package name, I'll often
> scan the list by the version number. Hence, keep it green!
>
> That is not happening. At the moment you are justifying me not removing
> > the colour of the version in -s and -o output.
> >
>
> "Yet" ... that is not happening *yet*. Whether you like it or not, my
> "-{Q,S}i" patch is one of the best things since sliced bread. I just have
> to find a way to add more colour to your life (so that you can appreciate
> it).
You seem to think that more color is so obviously better than less
color that you don't need to justify its inclusion. It's not. If you
really want all this color in pacman's output you need to start giving
us reasons beyond just "I want it" or "I find it more readable".
I believe Allan and I are in total agreement here: color is most
effective when used sparingly to emphasize particular important
information and we have no interest in tailoring pacman to a single
person's subjective taste. We have already heard from one user who
wants *less* color; you need to give us a reason why your desire for
more color makes more sense than their desire for less.
I still don't understand why you would scan -[QS]s output for version
numbers. You said that you do this when you want to know if your
installed version is the latest, but surely you need to locate the
correct package by name or description first. Or, in the case of -Ss
output, you might scan for the "[installed]" tag.
apg
