Change -U & -A to -> -I

detto · 2006-10-11 12:00:59

Adding a new package with a package file
# pacman --add foo.pkg.tar.gz
# pacman -A foo.pkg.tar.gz
This will install the foo.pkg.tar.gz package on the system. If dependencies are missing, pacman will exit with an error and report the missing deps, but not attempt to resolve the dependencies automatically. Look at the --sync option if you expect this functionality.
Upgrading a package with a package file
# pacman --upgrade foo.pkg.tar.gz
# pacman -U foo.pkg.tar.gz
This does essentially the same as the --add operation, but will additionally upgrade an already-installed package at no extra cost. I can personally not imagine a case where you'd prefer --add over this --upgrade function.

This is what is in official documentation, highlighting here the imoprtant part that -A option in pacman isnt needed really or its just better to use the upgrade parameter -U.
Well, my improvement idea now would be to throw away -U and -A and just use one common parameter for this upgrade procedure. Like for example "install" -> -I or some other that maybe fit better. But two of which one isnt needed (better to avoid in most cases) isnt that practical imho

Sigi · 2006-10-11 12:20:46

It's time to get a flyspray account, detto ;-)

+1 for your proposed enhancement!

detto · 2006-10-11 12:34:22

Sigi wrote:

It's time to get a flyspray account, detto ;-)

You mean the bug tracker thingy with that?
Well will do that now nevertheless ^^

+1 for your proposed enhancement!

hehe I feel the update and encourage smell that's lying in the air right now here. Just am gettin infected by it 8)

baze · 2006-10-11 12:38:39

i've been wondering why -A exists anyway. I've been using -U all the time and I think a single solution (the proposed -I) makes sense.

f1

cromo · 2006-10-11 14:30:48

I second that, as well. Makes completely no sense for me to have these two switches at once.

Gullible Jones · 2006-10-11 19:53:44

Ditto. The two options don't seem necessary to me.

detto · 2006-10-11 20:02:03

Sent to flyspray
http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/5571

elasticdog · 2006-10-11 20:12:10

I like the two since there is a semantical difference. Upgrade removes and then installs, where Add just installs. If you switch it to Install, you're basically having two functions which do different things. It may work for both, but the meaning isn't as clear and would make scripting slightly more confusing.

For instance, when you do <code>pacman -A</code> it has built-in protection so you don't overwrite files that might already be installed on your machine. If you try to add a package that is already installed, you'll get an error message:

error: PACKAGE_NAME is already installed. (try --upgrade)

That way, if you didn't intend to overwrite it, you're fine. If you just used upgrade, it would go through and replace things regardless of whether or not it was already installed.

BTW, which official document is the above quote posted from?

detto · 2006-10-11 20:18:43

elasticdog wrote:

I like the two since there is a semantical difference. Upgrade removes and then installs, where Add just installs. If you switch it to Install, you're basically having two functions which do different things. It may work for both, but the meaning isn't as clear and would make scripting slightly more confusing.
For instance, when you do <code>pacman -A</code> it has built-in protection so you don't overwrite files that might already be installed on your machine. If you try to add a package that is already installed, you'll get an error message:
error: PACKAGE_NAME is already installed. (try --upgrade)
That way, if you didn't intend to overwrite it, you're fine. If you just used upgrade, it would go through and replace things regardless of whether or not it was already installed.
BTW, which official document is the above quote posted from?

Mh,...but most of us do know what packages they got installed i guess.
Maybe a quick yes/no , if one wants to upgrade should be asked. That might be also a good idea if things are kept the way they are as now.
The link to install guide: http://www.archlinux.org/static/docs/ar … guide.html

cheers,
deTTo

phrakture · 2006-11-08 23:24:14

elasticdog wrote:

I like the two since there is a semantical difference. Upgrade removes and then installs, where Add just installs. If you switch it to Install, you're basically having two functions which do different things. It may work for both, but the meaning isn't as clear and would make scripting slightly more confusing.

Actually, this isn't true anymore. The pacman 3 codebase (not sure about the 2.X series) actually calls the exact same function for add and upgrade.

I'm for this change, if you guys can help me out and let me know what this will break. I guess adding an "-I" param in there while keeping the -U and -A for now couldn't hurt though.

brain0 · 2006-11-08 23:36:24

phrakture wrote:

Actually, this isn't true anymore. The pacman 3 codebase (not sure about the 2.X series) actually calls the exact same function for add and upgrade.
I'm for this change, if you guys can help me out and let me know what this will break. I guess adding an "-I" param in there while keeping the -U and -A for now couldn't hurt though.

-U and -A still behave differently on pacman2 (-U always works, -A only works if the package isn't installed). If pacman3 handles -A and -U the same way, then there is no need for -I. We could leave -U in the documentation and say "-A equivalent to -U" for backwards compatibility. If we introduce -I, we will have three operations with the same meaning.

BTW, what about a --syncdeps option for -U: This would install the file with -U, but install all dependencies as if you would -S them (except the "Reason" field, which would be "installed as a depdendency" in this case).

phrakture · 2006-11-08 23:40:24

brain0 wrote:

-U and -A still behave differently on pacman2 (-U always works, -A only works if the package isn't installed). If pacman3 handles -A and -U the same way, then there is no need for -I. We could leave -U in the documentation and say "-A equivalent to -U" for backwards compatibility. If we introduce -I, we will have three operations with the same meaning.

My intent was to say "add -I and slowly phase the -A and -U options out". I think "install" makes more sense from a grammatical perspective though.

brain0 wrote:

BTW, what about a --syncdeps option for -U: This would install the file with -U, but install all dependencies as if you would -S them (except the "Reason" field, which would be "installed as a depdendency" in this case).

/me points to the bug tracker

codemac · 2006-11-09 06:15:00

We could just leave -U in there methinks. Most people just use it anyways, no reason to change to -I except that in the english language it is _sometimes_ the literal word of the action you are doing. For me personally, I am upgrading more than I am installing with *.pkg.tar.gz files, so for me I think we should just leave it as -U.

Arch Linux

#1 2006-10-11 12:00:59

Change -U & -A to -> -I

#2 2006-10-11 12:20:46

Re: Change -U & -A to -> -I

#3 2006-10-11 12:34:22

Re: Change -U & -A to -> -I

#4 2006-10-11 12:38:39

Re: Change -U & -A to -> -I

#5 2006-10-11 14:30:48

Re: Change -U & -A to -> -I

#6 2006-10-11 19:53:44

Re: Change -U & -A to -> -I

#7 2006-10-11 20:02:03

Re: Change -U & -A to -> -I

#8 2006-10-11 20:12:10

Re: Change -U & -A to -> -I

#9 2006-10-11 20:18:43

Re: Change -U & -A to -> -I

#10 2006-11-08 23:24:14

Re: Change -U & -A to -> -I

#11 2006-11-08 23:36:24

Re: Change -U & -A to -> -I

#12 2006-11-08 23:40:24

Re: Change -U & -A to -> -I

#13 2006-11-09 06:15:00

Re: Change -U & -A to -> -I

Board footer