On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 11:27:15AM -0500, kamaraju kusumanchi wrote: > On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 8:47 AM, Tony van der Hoff <t...@vanderhoff.org> wrote: > > On 08/12/15 13:41, Chris Bannister wrote: > > > >> *groan* *sigh* ... I wonder why there's not a 'dpkg > >> --print-architectures' which prints out *all* the architectures it knows > >> about. > >> > > Because you haven't written it yet? > > IMHO this is an inappropriate response. Not all users can be expected > to write software and submit patches. It is one thing to ask them to > file a wishlist bug, it is another thing to demand a patch from every > user who suggests a way to improve user experience.
I was approaching the issue more from a design perspective (I could/should have left out the '*groan* *sigh* ...' and may be it would have read better?) e.g. --print-architecture lists the current, and --print-foreign-architectures lists the extras and no doubt (on reflexion) it was a consious decision not to also have a '--print-architectures' for all of them. I guess, '--print-architecture' which lists the one which dpkg was built for has more value being a separate option so that when used in a scripting context you won't get confused just because of an 's'. Perhaps there could be an option --print-all-architectures which would save having to concatenating the output of '--print-architecture' and '--print-foreign-architectures'? Is it used/needed by the end user often enough to warrant it? e.g. is it asked of a poster to debian-user regularly enough? -- "If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing." --- Malcolm X
