FS#8798 - Allow -Qo to perform a functional 'which'

Attached to Project: Pacman
Opened by Aaron Griffin (phrakture) - Friday, 30 November 2007, 03:01 GMT
Last edited by Allan McRae (Allan) - Tuesday, 11 May 2010, 22:54 GMT
Task Type Feature Request
Category Output
Status Closed
Assigned To Aaron Griffin (phrakture)
Allan McRae (Allan)
Architecture All
Severity Low
Priority Normal
Reported Version 3.0.6
Due in Version 3.4.0
Due Date Undecided
Percent Complete 100%
Votes 4
Private No

Details

It'd be nice if "pacman -Qo" would perform the "which" step for you for binaries, maybe even do it only if no owner is found the first time through the list. /me shrugs
This task depends upon

Closed by  Allan McRae (Allan)
Tuesday, 11 May 2010, 22:54 GMT
Reason for closing:  Implemented
Additional comments about closing:  Fixed in git: http://projects.archlinux.org/pacman.git /commit/?id=7f02f7cb
Comment by Dan McGee (toofishes) - Friday, 30 November 2007, 14:28 GMT
Please don't assign new tasks to me just becuase it deals with Pacman, Roman... I know that they exist, I look at the task overview page all the time. Especially this one that Aaron opened so I'm sure he is more likely to implement it than I am. :)
Comment by Roman Kyrylych (Romashka) - Friday, 30 November 2007, 16:01 GMT
ok.
I just did it because there were cases in past when one of you wasn't aware of some bug because it was unassigned and thus no mail notification was created and thus no attention was brought because it didn't stand out from hundred of other similar reports.
(phew, what a long sentence :D)
Comment by Aaron Griffin (phrakture) - Friday, 30 November 2007, 16:49 GMT
For the record, I get email notifications for all new bugs. Secondly, I would have assigned it when I created it if I felt it was important. I'm more or less just "logging this idea"
Comment by André Prata (nDray) - Friday, 07 December 2007, 14:23 GMT
I don't believe this is useful... You can just pacman -Qo `which command`... If pacman starts looking for executables, latter someone asks to search the whole tree for regular files.....
Comment by Aaron Griffin (phrakture) - Friday, 07 December 2007, 16:44 GMT
No, searching the whole tree for files is different. There are many many files that would conflict. For instance, "README" or "LICENSE". Binaries, however, have a known level of priority, it's based on the PATH variable.

The reason the mini-which would work is simply because it's always the common case. It's the same rationale for 'find' having a -delete argument - you could easily use -exec and rm, but it's a common case, so it's covered.
Comment by Allan McRae (Allan) - Monday, 15 December 2008, 12:02 GMT
A thread with a patch for this: http://archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2008-November/007659.html
Comment by Laszlo Papp (djszapi) - Friday, 30 October 2009, 21:59 GMT
What's the state of this thread/patch ? I can't use it now, so maybe it wasn't trivial to implement it or not.
Comment by Allan McRae (Allan) - Sunday, 07 March 2010, 03:03 GMT
Hopefully final patch:
http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2010-March/010496.html

Loading...