This repository has been archived by the owner. It is now read-only.

Add `--installed` to `brew deps` #13541

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into
from

Conversation

Projects
None yet
4 participants
@conormcd
Contributor

conormcd commented Jul 22, 2012

Show dependencies for all installed formulae by using brew deps --installed.

I took the opportunity to make the behavior of the options to brew deps a little more orthogonal. The --1, --tree and -n options now
work the same way whether you specify one formula, multiple or all.

@mxcl

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@mxcl

mxcl Aug 4, 2012

Member

Seems to me like brew deps with no arguments should assume all.

Member

mxcl commented Aug 4, 2012

Seems to me like brew deps with no arguments should assume all.

Add `--installed` to `brew deps`
Show dependencies for all installed formulae by using `brew deps
--installed`.

I took the opportunity to make the behavior of the options to `brew
deps` a little more orthogonal. The `--1`, `--tree` and `-n` options now
work the same way whether you specify one formula, multiple or all.

Now passing no arguments implies `--all`.
@conormcd

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@conormcd

conormcd Aug 4, 2012

Contributor

Done, and squashed into the original.

Contributor

conormcd commented Aug 4, 2012

Done, and squashed into the original.

@mxcl

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@mxcl

mxcl Aug 5, 2012

Member

So now brew deps foo bar doesn't show the intersection of deps, it shows the combined deps?

This was deliberate. It's easy to get the combined deps, run the command twice. It's hard to get the intersection.

Member

mxcl commented Aug 5, 2012

So now brew deps foo bar doesn't show the intersection of deps, it shows the combined deps?

This was deliberate. It's easy to get the combined deps, run the command twice. It's hard to get the intersection.

@jacknagel

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@jacknagel

jacknagel Aug 28, 2012

Contributor

Hmm. I kinda want "--installed" for a different mode:

Related to my deps work in #14456, I think brew deps --installed foo should mean "show me the deps for foo, respecting used_options from foo's installation receipt, and if we are showing deps recursively, respect their installation receipts as well."

Contributor

jacknagel commented Aug 28, 2012

Hmm. I kinda want "--installed" for a different mode:

Related to my deps work in #14456, I think brew deps --installed foo should mean "show me the deps for foo, respecting used_options from foo's installation receipt, and if we are showing deps recursively, respect their installation receipts as well."

@mxcl

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@mxcl

mxcl Aug 28, 2012

Member

Closing, for x in $(brew ls); do brew deps $x; done is easy and does the same. We're a shell command. If you can get the same result with some simple shell-fu and the thing in question is not a common enough operation to justify the convenience of putting it into the command, then we should resist. Thanks for the efforts however, next time perhaps open a ticket to ask if we'd accept the patch first?

@jacknagel --installed feels ambiguous to me, as a user this would suggest the deps for the kegs that are installed to me like @conormcd proposed. We need a flag that suggests "apply the installation receipt options". I gave it a few minutes thought and nothing great came up, possibly we could start using --brewed/-b for this.

Edit: this is no better than --installed, is it?

Member

mxcl commented Aug 28, 2012

Closing, for x in $(brew ls); do brew deps $x; done is easy and does the same. We're a shell command. If you can get the same result with some simple shell-fu and the thing in question is not a common enough operation to justify the convenience of putting it into the command, then we should resist. Thanks for the efforts however, next time perhaps open a ticket to ask if we'd accept the patch first?

@jacknagel --installed feels ambiguous to me, as a user this would suggest the deps for the kegs that are installed to me like @conormcd proposed. We need a flag that suggests "apply the installation receipt options". I gave it a few minutes thought and nothing great came up, possibly we could start using --brewed/-b for this.

Edit: this is no better than --installed, is it?

@adamv adamv closed this Aug 28, 2012

@jacknagel

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@jacknagel

jacknagel Aug 28, 2012

Contributor

I'm going to just mock up some different things in an external command and then we can decide later which is best.

Contributor

jacknagel commented Aug 28, 2012

I'm going to just mock up some different things in an external command and then we can decide later which is best.

@conormcd

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@conormcd

conormcd Aug 29, 2012

Contributor

@mxcl Thanks for dealing with this, I guess I hadn't thought it all the way through.

Contributor

conormcd commented Aug 29, 2012

@mxcl Thanks for dealing with this, I guess I hadn't thought it all the way through.

@xu-cheng xu-cheng locked and limited conversation to collaborators Feb 16, 2016

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.