From ArchWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

"Remove a package(s) by name"

pacman -Rc is listed as the command, but -c removes every package that depends on the named package (as opposed to the default behavior of aborting the removal and informing the user of the dependencies preventing the removal, at which point the user can decide whether the depending packages should also be removed or whether the named package should be kept installed). I think the command here should be changed to -R or -Rs. Dopamine (talk) 21:32, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Changed in Special:Diff/376673. -- Josephgbr (talk) 15:48, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

zypper rm -u does not remove orphans of a package that was removed

zypper rm -u requires an argument, for example a package name. The command can only remove orphans of a package during removal of that package. Once the package is removed, the command will not be equivalent to pacman -Qdtq | pacman -Rs -.

zypper >= 1.9.2 can list orphans after a package was removed by using --unneeded. See this issue and the manual.

--Markus00000 (talk) 07:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. It seems zypper rm -u is equivalent to pacman -Ru. On the other side, the command zypper pa --unneeded prints all unneeded packages, but not in easily pipe-able output for a remove command. How about "zypper pa --unneeded to list packages, then append them to zypper rm" ? -- Josephgbr (talk) 17:35, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

pacman -F commands

Is there a reason some of the pacman -F* commands are not in the list? Fore instance pacman -Fs can do the same as pkgfile -s without the need for an additional program. — Xha (talk) 20:38, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Because they were added in pacman 5.0 and nobody updated the wiki yet. Even the pacman page itself is not up to date. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 12:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Currently, pacman -F is in both pacman and in this page. Closing. -- Josephgbr (talk) 15:44, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Splitting into sections

This table needs to be split into sensible sections. I edited the current version into a split version at User:Wtachi/Pacman/Rosetta. Does the edited version look good (aside from the row colors)? Wtachi (talk) 18:50, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Since no-one's responded, I've gone ahead and copied the changes here. You can see the history of the changes at User:Wtachi/Pacman/Rosetta. Wtachi (talk) 15:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
I've reviewed your changes and they all look good - thanks for your contribution! -- Pypi (talk) 23:45, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Done in Special:Diff/456291, for the record. -- Josephgbr (talk) 17:45, 27 August 2019 (UTC)


I think a row for pacdiff with stuff like rpmconf -a would be helpful, but I'm not sure which would be the best section for it. -- ImNtReal (talk) 14:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Monospace command lines in this page to follow ArchWiki style guide?

The style guide about CLI lines says they should be in monospace, to differentiate from the normal text. If applying this style guide, basically almost every table cell in this page should be in monospace. Does it make sense to apply this style to all command lines, or is it better to keep as it is? -- Josephgbr (talk) 12:37, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

In theory it would make sense, but I see 2 side effects:
  • Our <code> tags, and therefore the {{ic}} templates, use white-space:pre, so each command would appear as one line and stretch the table horizontally (unless we explicitly break lines in the source text or make an ad-hoc template); this could be seen as a positive or negative consequence;
  • The source text is going to become even more complex, so possibly harder to further modify.
I'm neutral for the moment. -- Kynikos (talk) 08:50, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm leaning toward supporting monospace using Template:ic, as I think it would improve readability. While we're at it, any thoughts about the unique table formatting? We could get rid of the alternating row color and just use class="wikitable". -- nl6720 (talk) 09:16, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
No harm in giving Template:ic a try here, maybe start with only a section to see the feedback.
About the alternating colors (and the table headings), me too I'd prefer having a formatting consistent with the rest of the wiki.
-- Kynikos (talk) 07:22, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
I created a draft for a visual feedback. Let me know what you think. If you like it I would be glad to apply it to the whole page:
  1. Page content and Diff - Applying table consistent with other pages (inspired on "AUR helpers")
  2. Page content and Diff - Applying monospace to just a few commands. Please notice I added "and" when both commands must be used (there was a &&), and "or" when both do the same thing (there was newline or multiple spaces to separate them). I also added a white space around the cell delimiters (||) to improve readability of the page's source.
-- Josephgbr (talk) 10:18, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Josephgbr, I think it looks really nice, I've only got 3 remarks:
  • I don't think the tables should be sortable;
  • I'd do without text-align:center and let everything align left instead;
  • I'd leave the && chains as they are, i.e. without replacing "&&" with "and", or I'd replace "&&" with "then" or "and then", since that's what it actually means when used with commands (exploiting short-circuit evaluation); I like the idea of replacing "<br>" with "or" instead.
-- Kynikos (talk) 22:41, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Page content and Diff - Removed center alignment and sortable, and applied "or" and "and then" with monospace to some more table cells. Looks good? -- Josephgbr (talk) 10:06, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
It does, thank you, I support the switch to that formatting, maybe wait a little to see if nl6720 wants to add something too, although he was actually already more convinced than me. -- Kynikos (talk) 17:17, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Looks good to me too. -- nl6720 (talk) 18:16, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Changes applied in three commits: Special:Diff/584790 with wikitable and cell colors change, Special:Diff/584792 with a fix to a Oops, and Special:Diff/584801 with text, CLI and other style changes. -- Josephgbr (talk) 13:09, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
It looks a lot better now. Good work! :) -- nl6720 (talk) 16:29, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, well done Josephgbr! -- Kynikos (talk) 15:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)