pacman default as NO?

x33a · 2014-05-10 12:18:44

Guys, I don't know why everyone's making a big deal out of this request. If his patch doesn't change the default behaviour, and adds no noticeable cruft to pacman's codebase, I don't see why it should be a problem.

Even mutt provides the option of ask-yes or ask-no for dozens of (non-fatal) options.

And looking at the bug report, at least 3 people are interested in this feature. 3 people, who have a flyspray account, that is

amish · 2014-05-10 12:37:57

@Trilby
I mean no dis-respect to anyone.

I used to be Fedora user (since 1998 - RedHat days).

I have started to like Arch. (And using from about 1 week - havent even booted back to Fedora since then)

My that statement was based on Fedora. This is how it happens in Fedora. (atleast people I know of do not update immediately)

Yum of Fedora has default option as NO. (Other major distros also have NO as default in their package updater) - so my assumption is not completely wrong.

Anyway, so my habit is "yum upgrade ...." ... press Enter. (i.e. Do nothing)

Now this causes major issue for me on arch ... "pacman -Syu... " ... press Enter... boom it starts updating!!

On Fedora to "test" remove package, I run "yum remove ... " ..... press enter. (does not remove package)

Now in arch same thing immediately removes the package (even before you realize, package is gone!)

Thats why I asked for this feature, but instead, replies I got was do it yourself (which I did). Some guy used BS word etc.

Its like you cant even request a feature. I am asking for optional feature, I am not forcing it on you.

Last edited by amish (2014-05-10 12:45:18)

2ManyDogs · 2014-05-10 12:49:58

amish wrote:

Yum of Fedora has default option as NO. (Other major distros also have NO as default in their package updater) - so my assumption is not completely wrong.

Debian must not be a major distro. The default answer for apt is "Y".

Need to get 52.3 MB of archives.
After this operation, 5,955 kB of additional disk space will be used.
Do you want to continue? [Y/n]

amish · 2014-05-10 13:03:07

Hmm, ok this is my last comment. Do not want to argue on distro comparisons. Its never going to end.

I have done my part, I have created and submitted the patch.

If its accepted no issue, if not even then no issue. I can always apply my patch and recompile.

Thanks everyone for replies and debates :-)

clfarron4 · 2014-05-10 13:42:46

2ManyDogs wrote:

amish wrote:
Yum of Fedora has default option as NO. (Other major distros also have NO as default in their package updater) - so my assumption is not completely wrong.
Debian must not be a major distro. The default answer for apt is "Y".
Need to get 52.3 MB of archives.
After this operation, 5,955 kB of additional disk space will be used.
Do you want to continue? [Y/n]

I was about to say that about Ubuntu.

aaditya · 2014-05-10 14:29:32

I too do pacman -Syu to check what updates are available, and then Ctrl^C or n mostly.
Didnt know about checkupdates, will give it a try.

Scimmia · 2014-05-10 14:45:15

amish wrote:

@Trilby
I mean no dis-respect to anyone.
I used to be Fedora user (since 1998 - RedHat days).
I have started to like Arch. (And using from about 1 week - havent even booted back to Fedora since then)
My that statement was based on Fedora. This is how it happens in Fedora. (atleast people I know of do not update immediately)
Yum of Fedora has default option as NO. (Other major distros also have NO as default in their package updater) - so my assumption is not completely wrong.
Anyway, so my habit is "yum upgrade ...." ... press Enter. (i.e. Do nothing)
Now this causes major issue for me on arch ... "pacman -Syu... " ... press Enter... boom it starts updating!!
On Fedora to "test" remove package, I run "yum remove ... " ..... press enter. (does not remove package)
Now in arch same thing immediately removes the package (even before you realize, package is gone!)
Thats why I asked for this feature, but instead, replies I got was do it yourself (which I did). Some guy used BS word etc.
Its like you cant even request a feature. I am asking for optional feature, I am not forcing it on you.

You either update or you don't. Your either remove a package or you don't. Doing a "test" remove is just nonsense. If I didn't want to remove a package, I wouldn't tell pacman to remove it.

My objection to this isn't based on that faulty assumption in the first post, it's in wanting the Windows like behavior of constantly having to confirm what I already told it to do. It doesn't matter if it's optional, it's against the Arch Way IMO. The user is given control over their system and it's expected that they can use it responsibly. If they can't, that's their problem.

Head_on_a_Stick · 2014-05-10 15:10:20

amish wrote:

even before you realize, package is gone!

Isn't the *.pkg.tar.gz still in /var/cache/pacman/pkg/? It can be re-installed even without an internet connection...

amish · 2014-05-10 15:29:09

Scimmia wrote:

You either update or you don't. Your either remove a package or you don't. Doing a "test" remove is just nonsense. If I didn't want to remove a package, I wouldn't tell pacman to remove it.

Good to know its non-sense.

@head_on_a_stick - yes i know. thats what i have done. But I want to avoid doing that, thats why feature request.

WonderWoofy · 2014-05-10 16:37:14

In Andrew Gregory's last comment in that bug report, I think he provides a sane "solution" (personally, I'm not sure if there was a problem to begin with):

Andrew Gregory wrote:

If you want safer behavior, I would instead suggest a setting to remove the default action altogether so that the user MUST provide an answer unless --noconfirm is used. That way we don't have to worry about figuring out which prompts should be changed.

amish · 2014-05-10 16:48:11

Umm, If that suggestion is accepted, some people will complain, "Hey you are making me type one keystroke extra". (Me included)

My patch can easily be further extended to make Andrew Gregory happy as well.
DefaultAnswer = nodefault
(see my comment on feature request page for details)

You cant keep everyone happy by hardcoding things, thats why "conf" file concept was ever designed. Let each user set their own preference.

Last edited by amish (2014-05-10 16:50:06)

tomk · 2014-05-10 17:16:48

I remember when I was a freshly-minted Arch noob, and I was quite put out that I couldn't use Debian-style network configuration - even asked about it, just like you're asking why pacman can't be configured to behave like yum.

The thing is, the reason we have different distros is, well, because they are different. Maybe you believe a week is enough for you to become accustomed to the way Arch does things, maybe you are already fully convinced that you will never be able to change your habits sufficiently to avoid the danger that you perceive in the current setup. I think it's great that you have the time and skill to create and submit a patch for this, but I would recommend that you give yourself more time with Arch as well.

I became very comfortable with Arch's network configuration as it was back then, and ultimately found it much more straightforward than the Debian method that I had been using - but of course, that took time, definitely more than a week.

Last edited by tomk (2014-05-10 17:17:20)

train_wreck · 2014-05-10 17:21:23

i guess you could say this distro is "mature" when you're getting 30+ replies on a topic like this

and to amish's very first post, yes this type of issue has been discussed by a certain member (me!) a few weeks ago, albeit with a little less drama

https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=181057

#SplittingHairs

jasonwryan · 2014-05-10 19:51:47

WonderWoofy wrote:

/usr/bin/checkupdates

This. There is a reason this is shipped with pacman.

Shark · 2014-05-10 20:58:16

To be honest – till now i didn't really realized that Y is a default way. It could be N. But then again somebody could demand a Y way if N would be a default one.

Anyway – it's all about choises and preferences. Arguments are secondary

Last edited by Shark (2014-05-10 20:59:43)

ANOKNUSA · 2014-05-10 23:09:12

I've been following this thread since shortly after it opened, and I'm no closer to understanding what the problem is now than I was last night. I'd almost swear this thread were satire.

tomk · 2014-05-11 07:59:55

Post #27 made it clear for me - he has habits developed over many years using yum, and he wants to change pacman to accommodate those habits, instead of allowing his habits to change to accommodate pacman.

fsckd · 2014-05-11 12:17:54

I am closing this thread before it escalates. There is not much more that can be said than already has. If you wish to contribute to the technical side of the discussion, there is a report on the bug tracker; link somewhere above.

amish, I hope you reconsider to learn how to use pacman and related tools correctly. If you insist on partial updates, there is little this forum or the Arch Linux community in whole can offer you.

Arch Linux

#26 2014-05-10 12:18:44

Re: pacman default as NO?

#27 2014-05-10 12:37:57

Re: pacman default as NO?

#28 2014-05-10 12:49:58

Re: pacman default as NO?

#29 2014-05-10 13:03:07

Re: pacman default as NO?

#30 2014-05-10 13:42:46

Re: pacman default as NO?

#31 2014-05-10 14:29:32

Re: pacman default as NO?

#32 2014-05-10 14:45:15

Re: pacman default as NO?

#33 2014-05-10 15:10:20

Re: pacman default as NO?

#34 2014-05-10 15:29:09

Re: pacman default as NO?

#35 2014-05-10 16:37:14

Re: pacman default as NO?

#36 2014-05-10 16:48:11

Re: pacman default as NO?

#37 2014-05-10 17:16:48

Re: pacman default as NO?

#38 2014-05-10 17:21:23

Re: pacman default as NO?

#39 2014-05-10 19:51:47

Re: pacman default as NO?

#40 2014-05-10 20:58:16

Re: pacman default as NO?

#41 2014-05-10 23:09:12

Re: pacman default as NO?

#42 2014-05-11 07:59:55

Re: pacman default as NO?

#43 2014-05-11 12:17:54

Re: pacman default as NO?

Board footer