On Fri, 2020-02-21 at 17:19 -0500, Eli Schwartz via arch-general wrote:
> On 2/21/20 4:22 PM, Ralf Mardorf via arch-general wrote:
> > I suspect that paccheck's recursive option is unneeded.
>
> I don't understand how you could possibly think so? The recursive option
> plainly makes it *recursive*
On 2/21/20 4:27 PM, Ralf Mardorf via arch-general wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 22:22:14 +0100, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
>> I suspect that paccheck's recursive option is unneeded.
>
> Doing a few tests, the quite option seems to have no impact either.
>
> paccheck --opt-depends
>
> or
>
> paccheck --
On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 22:27:48 +0100, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
>On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 22:22:14 +0100, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
>>I suspect that paccheck's recursive option is unneeded.
>
>Doing a few tests, the quite option seems to have no impact either.
>
>paccheck --opt-depends
>
>or
>
>paccheck --opt-d
On 2/21/20 4:22 PM, Ralf Mardorf via arch-general wrote:
> I suspect that paccheck's recursive option is unneeded.
I don't understand how you could possibly think so? The recursive option
plainly makes it *recursive*, i.e. it lists the uninstalled optdepends
for all your dependencies. This is quit
On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 23:10:05 +0100, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
>>> You should report it here: https://github.com/steffenfritz/pacaudit
My bad I read "_pac_utils" instead of "_pac_audit". My apologies!
However, there seems to be a ser
On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 22:17:55 +0100, ProgAndy wrote:
>security.archlinux.org seems to be broken at the moment and returns
>"Internal Server Error". That is interesting.
Yes, it does.
On Fri, 2020-02-21 at 16:12 -0500, Chris Billington wrote:
> That looks like an unrelated bug in a hook installed b
On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 22:22:14 +0100, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
>I suspect that paccheck's recursive option is unneeded.
Doing a few tests, the quite option seems to have no impact either.
paccheck --opt-depends
or
paccheck --opt-depends PACKAGE_NAME
seems to provide the same output as
paccheck --opt
I suspect that paccheck's recursive option is unneeded.
[rocketmouse@archlinux ~]$ pacman -Qi alure | sed -n '/Deps/,$p' | sed
'/^Required/q' | grep -v Required\ By | grep -v None | grep -v installed]
dumb: for IT, XM, S3M and MOD support
[rocketmouse@archlinux ~]$ paccheck --op
Am 21.02.20 um 21:52 schrieb Ralf Mardorf via arch-general:
> ...
> Btw. when installing it there was an issue:
> ...
> 2020/02/21 21:46:45 invalid character 'I' looking for beginning of value
> error: command failed to execute correctly
> ...
>
security.archlinux.org seems to be broken at the mome
That looks like an unrelated bug in a hook installed by pacaudit. You
should report it here: https://github.com/steffenfritz/pacaudit
On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 3:52 PM Ralf Mardorf via arch-general <
arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 2020-02-21 at 14:29 -0500, Eli Schwartz via arch-gener
On Fri, 2020-02-21 at 14:29 -0500, Eli Schwartz via arch-general wrote:
> paccheck --opt-depends --quiet --recursive
Thank you for the pointer :), it does the job.
Btw. when installing it there was an issue:
[rocketmouse@archlinux ~]$ sudo pacman -S pacutils
[snip]
(1/1) pacaudit-pre.hook
2020/
On Fri, 2020-02-21 at 14:11 -0500, Jude DaShiell wrote:
> Can pacman be used to find which packages are missing which optional
> dependencies after an install?
In the Internet I found
"For example with xmms2:
pacman -Qi xmms2 | sed -n '/^Optional/,$p' | sed '/^Required/q' | head -n -1 |
cut -c19
On 2/21/20 2:11 PM, Jude DaShiell wrote:
> Can pacman be used to find which packages are missing which optional
> dependencies after an install?
pacman -Qi for a given package will show you optional dependencies and
list which ones are satisfied.
You can walk a dependency tree automatically and c
13 matches
Mail list logo
