FS#6430 - support IgnorePkg with -S too

Attached to Project: Pacman
Opened by Roman Kyrylych (Romashka) - Friday, 16 February 2007, 09:22 GMT
Last edited by Roman Kyrylych (Romashka) - Saturday, 09 February 2008, 21:27 GMT
Task Type Feature Request
Category General
Status Closed
Assigned To Aaron Griffin (phrakture)
Dan McGee (toofishes)
Architecture All
Severity Low
Priority Normal
Reported Version 0.7.2 Gimmick
Due in Version Undecided
Due Date Undecided
Percent Complete 100%
Votes 1
Private No

Details

As it was already mentioned in pacman-dev ML, it would be nice for IgnorePkg to work with -S only too, not just with -Su.

Example:

IgnorePkg foo bar
package bunk depends=(foo baz)

pacman -S bunk
Targets: bunk baz
This task depends upon

Closed by  Roman Kyrylych (Romashka)
Saturday, 09 February 2008, 21:27 GMT
Reason for closing:  Won't implement
Additional comments about closing:  See Xavier's comment
Comment by Roman Kyrylych (Romashka) - Wednesday, 07 March 2007, 19:38 GMT
I think imlementing this FR will close #4845 too.
Comment by name withheld (Gullible Jones) - Wednesday, 28 March 2007, 01:36 GMT
Still doesn't have right functionality as of 3.0.0. Refusing to install a dependancy listed in IgnorePkg prevents things that depend on it from installing - there is no "Install without dependency" option.
Comment by Xavier (shining) - Saturday, 09 February 2008, 12:09 GMT
I don't like this. There is a reason why pacman just fails when you refuse to install an ignored package,
it's that it would break dependencies and the consistency of your local database
(like -Rd and -Sd but these options are at least more explicit. and they are not recommended).

If a dependency is not really required (that is, the package works perfectly fine without it), then it is really an optional dep.
That's what the optdepends field is for.

Also see the last comment there :
http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/4845#comment24651

So I would close this at "Won't fix"
Instead, report a bug against bunk package, asking to change the foo depends to optdepends.
Comment by Roman Kyrylych (Romashka) - Saturday, 09 February 2008, 21:26 GMT
OK, after some talking with Xavier on IRC I agree that this is "Won't Implement" for reasons he described in the above comment.

Loading...