> > Hey, late to the party, and I get the sense this patch set isn't going > to fly, so I hope I'm not adding salt to the wound. >
You're not really late to the party: you might recall contributing to this thread on June 6, 2013. What bothered me about the pacman-color patch was how half-hazard the > -Si/-Qi colouring is. The important bits (to me, of course) aren't > colourized. The repository and URL are not very important. Dependency > information, on the other hand, is. 90% of the time I search the pacman > database, what I care about is the description and the dependencies - > both demphasized with their implemented colouring scheme. > Maybe the description and dependencies can be given other colours once my patch is included. > By attempting to colourizing individual fields IMHO we'll either end up > with a soup of colours that ends up more distracting then informational, > or we make the wrong choice, emphasizing the wrong stuff and making the > output harder to read. The current way is at least a nice balance that > doesn't fall into either pitfalls. > In order to be consistent, the repository, name, version, and groups should all be coloured. The pacman -Sl output, these days, is too colourful in my opinion and I > kinda regret it. I do wish it less bright. Something closer to only the > package name and maybe the "[installed]" bit should have colour. > I think it looks good; the colours are so different from each other that there's no confusion.
