Closed ralt closed 9 years ago
I'm for a force option, but against passing the arguments verbatim. That leads to inconsistencies, depending on what your package manager is.
If one wants to do some action which requires a flag, and it makes sense for all package managers to implement, then we should support it (like --yes
). Anything more esoteric means one should defer to the package manager they assume they'll be using.
Fair enough.
Is there the concept of signed packages on pacman?
Does it ever. It's a cause of many-a weird upgrade bugs, where for instance the keyring (which is a package) got updated, but you try to install other packages first based off of the old keyring and no fun... cough Anyway, are you thinking about a flag specifying a "strictness" level?
Because debian needs both --yes
and --force-yes
if a repo managing the package isn't signed.
Oh my...is this a common occurrence?
No. I encountered it because I have a custom repository (with custom packages) and I didn't want to bother signing it.
Aside from that, I haven't seen it a lot out there in the wild.
Added -y
flag in af631ed3aadf0509e53d5e3f1995309939252a41
I propose just adding
-y|--yes
to force install. Or simply use something akin toapt-get install $@