FS#5007 - Having -c mean two different things, one expensive, is less than ideal usability design
Attached to Project:
Pacman
Opened by Richard Maxwell Underwood (ru) - Monday, 10 July 2006, 03:24 GMT
Last edited by Roman Kyrylych (Romashka) - Wednesday, 24 January 2007, 11:13 GMT
Opened by Richard Maxwell Underwood (ru) - Monday, 10 July 2006, 03:24 GMT
Last edited by Roman Kyrylych (Romashka) - Wednesday, 24 January 2007, 11:13 GMT
|
Details
Some of us are on dialup still and many europeans probably
still pay
thier ISP per megabyte downloaded. For those people, accidentally specifying a -c flag to pacman -S can cost them a lot of money or duplicated hours spent waiting. It is unfortunate that -c has another use on the Pacman command line (namely as short for --cascade) because people who get in the habit of specifying -c when they mean --cascade might one day mistakenly specify the -c flag with the -S operation, resulting in the deletion of package files that might take a long time to download again. |
This task depends upon
Closed by Roman Kyrylych (Romashka)
Friday, 16 February 2007, 19:38 GMT
Reason for closing: Won't implement
Additional comments about closing: Both -Sc and -Scc require a confirmation in pacman3, which is sufficient.
Friday, 16 February 2007, 19:38 GMT
Reason for closing: Won't implement
Additional comments about closing: Both -Sc and -Scc require a confirmation in pacman3, which is sufficient.
AFAIR there was a feature request to make pacman -Scc require confirmation from user.
The point is the bug contains ideas like "if the user is not paying attention" or "if the user makes a mistake". pacman (nor any *nix utility, really) shouldn't hold your hand. For one thing, you have to be root when running -Sc or -Scc. When something requires root, it means "PAY ATTENTION", not "meh, do whatever". Adding checks on top of checks on top of checks is silly.