Pacman

Historical bug tracker for the Pacman package manager.

The pacman bug tracker has moved to gitlab:
https://gitlab.archlinux.org/pacman/pacman/-/issues

This tracker remains open for interaction with historical bugs during the transition period. Any new bugs reports will be closed without further action.
Tasklist

FS#12448 - Display of opt depends

Attached to Project: Pacman
Opened by Scott H (stonecrest) - Sunday, 14 December 2008, 15:29 GMT
Last edited by Xavier (shining) - Monday, 27 July 2009, 13:40 GMT
Task Type Feature Request
Category Output
Status Closed
Assigned To No-one
Architecture All
Severity Low
Priority Normal
Reported Version 3.2.1
Due in Version Undecided
Due Date Undecided
Percent Complete 100%
Votes 0
Private No

Details

When installing a package (like pacman), all optional dependencies are displayed. This presumably causes many users to issue a number of pacman -Q operations to verify that they have the optional deps installed that they wanted. For some packages, I'm pretty damn sure I have the opt depends installed but I still check them on pretty much every upgrade to make sure I haven't accidentally removed them.

Perhaps it might be a better idea to list only the optional deps that aren't installed? Or, a more explicit path would be to list all opt depends but somehow flag those that are already installed.
This task depends upon

Closed by  Xavier (shining)
Monday, 27 July 2009, 13:40 GMT
Reason for closing:  Implemented
Additional comments about closing:  as said in the comments, this has been improved.
otherwise, flagging installed optdepends is also mentioned here : http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/User :Allan/Pacman_OptDepends
Comment by Dan McGee (toofishes) - Sunday, 14 December 2008, 19:23 GMT
I think this patch (in GIT) already addresses the issue:
http://projects.archlinux.org/?p=pacman.git;a=commit;h=9dbe5c9d1ee5fb00f25515dfb5a2feb3ae6ebd59
Comment by Scott H (stonecrest) - Sunday, 14 December 2008, 21:10 GMT
Nice.. I'm not sure it would be my top choice for implementation, but it should cut down on the problem I was describing so you can go ahead and close this FR, it's much better than the previous default.
Comment by Xavier (shining) - Tuesday, 16 December 2008, 22:26 GMT
Indeed, it cuts down the problem, but it is not incompatible with the suggestions proposed here. Especially this one could still be considered in my opinion :
* flag those that are already installed

The code clutter added by this should be low enough. So I consider this as a feature request with low importance, which can remain open to let interested people or people who want to start playing with pacman code the opportunity to implement it.

Loading...