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#23383 - Small cosmetic inconsistencies in pacman output messages

Attached to Project: Pacman
Opened by Slobodan Terzic (Xabre) - Tuesday, 22 March 2011, 12:43 GMT
Last edited by Dan McGee (toofishes) - Tuesday, 22 March 2011, 14:14 GMT
Task Type Bug Report
Category Output
Status Closed
Assigned To No-one
Architecture All
Severity Very Low
Priority Normal
Reported Version 3.5.0
Due in Version Undecided
Due Date Undecided
Percent Complete 100%
Votes 0
Private No

Details

Summary and Info:

Well, this is quite easy to explain:

$ LANG=C pacman -h
usage: pacman <operation> [...]
operations:
pacman {-h --help}
pacman {-V --version}
pacman {-D --database} <options> <package(s)>
pacman {-Q --query} [options] [package(s)]
pacman {-R --remove} [options] <package(s)>
pacman {-S --sync} [options] [package(s)]
pacman {-U --upgrade} [options] <file(s)>

use 'pacman {-h --help}' with an operation for available options


You see, sometimes it's <package(s)> or <file(s)>, and sometimes it's [package(s)] or [file(s)]. The same goes for few other similar messages.

Well, it think I might not be the only one who finds this unnecessarily ugly, though it seems rather easy to fix.

Of course this is by all means not a showstopper, but I think it should be fixed eventually if you find some time (or see it fit in the first place).


Steps to Reproduce:

Use the -h flag for pacman, and see the ouput.
This task depends upon

Closed by  Dan McGee (toofishes)
Tuesday, 22 March 2011, 14:14 GMT
Reason for closing:  Won't fix
Comment by Xavier (shining) - Tuesday, 22 March 2011, 13:26 GMT
[] means optional, <> means mandatory.
Comment by Slobodan Terzic (Xabre) - Tuesday, 22 March 2011, 13:46 GMT
Thanks, Xavier, I never thought of it that way.
But one might argue that such meaning it's not exaclly obvious to end user unless that user knows what [] and <> stand for (and there is no clarification on that in help messages).

However, it's not a big deal at all, and should not affect overall usability.
For that matter, this task may be marked as invalid.
Comment by Dan McGee (toofishes) - Tuesday, 22 March 2011, 14:14 GMT
We're not fixing 20+ year old convention which is in every bit of help output and manpage out there, so I'm not sure what you're looking for here. We don't document it, but nor does anyone else and cluttering help output with this is not really the place it belongs.
Comment by Slobodan Terzic (Xabre) - Tuesday, 22 March 2011, 14:31 GMT
Thanks Dan, and sorry for being ignorant.

Loading...