Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Drop replacing lines from the table when they are exact replacements #1574

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

jan-kolarik
Copy link
Member

Exclude replacing lines from the transaction table output when replacing a single package with the same name.

For #326.

Exclude `replacing` lines from the transaction table output when replacing a single package with the same name.
@jan-kolarik jan-kolarik force-pushed the jkolarik/drop-replacing-lines branch from 816f545 to 55c0eba Compare July 4, 2024 08:38
@jrohel
Copy link
Contributor

jrohel commented Jul 8, 2024

I understand the motivation for this change - fewer rows in the table.
The problem is that useful information is being removed, not just duplicated as stated in the linked issue.

For example, I check from which version to which version the change is happening before approving the upgrade.
Occasionally it happens that a package is replaced by a package with a different architecture, an arch package for noarch and vice versa. Or a package from a different repository.

I understand that not everyone checks what is happening in the system during an upgrade. But I do use this information and it is one of the reasons for me why dnf5 is better than dnf.

I guess we'll have to figure out the "verbosity" of the output somehow, since everyone has different preferences. This PR will satisfy users who want a shorter output at the expense of information (or who have super memory and know exactly what versions and from where they have installed and thus don't need to display it). But it will annoy those who are interested in details. Especially when I manage several different computers I am interested in the exact state of the upgraded computer when upgrading.

@jan-kolarik
Copy link
Member Author

There is an intent to have the verbosity configurable with a default level "not detailed". The verbose mode should be implemented by the #1518 after the discussion in #1191.

@jan-kolarik jan-kolarik added the blocked Further work on issue or PR is blocked by something else label Jul 22, 2024
@jan-kolarik
Copy link
Member Author

There isn't a consensus within the team on this approach. Let's wait until things settle around the verbose mode, and then we can decide. We can eventually merge it together when the verbose option is ready.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
blocked Further work on issue or PR is blocked by something else
Projects
Status: Review
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants