Alex Kost skribis:
> If I understood correctly, the message should look like this:
>
> emacs: Improve key bindings for marking the packages.
>
> Use "U" to upgrade the current package, "^" to upgrade all.
>
> * emacs/guix-list.el: (guix-list-unmark): With prefix, mark all.
> (guix-package-list-
Ludovic Courtès (2014-09-07 01:15 +0400) wrote:
> Alex Kost skribis:
>
>> From b3f3e4b900f4a2d97a10410abe2561d9d1fc137a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Alex Kost
>> Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2014 18:00:45 +0400
>> Subject: [PATCH] emacs: Improve key bindings for marking the packages.
>>
>> * emacs/guix
Alex Kost skribis:
> From b3f3e4b900f4a2d97a10410abe2561d9d1fc137a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Alex Kost
> Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2014 18:00:45 +0400
> Subject: [PATCH] emacs: Improve key bindings for marking the packages.
>
> * emacs/guix-list.el: Use "U" to upgrade the current package, "^" to
>
Alex Kost writes:
> OK, so the summary is:
>
> - "u" to unmark ("C-u u" to unmark all);
>
> - "i" to mark for installing "out" of the current package ("C-u i" to
> prompt for outputs to install);
>
> - "d" to mark for deleting all outputs of the current package ("C-u d" to
> prompt for output
Ludovic Courtès (2014-09-06 00:22 +0400) wrote:
> Alex Kost skribis:
>
>> Ludovic Courtès (2014-09-05 12:26 +0400) wrote:
>>
>>> Alex Kost skribis:
>>>
Hello,
I would like to know people's opinions about default key bindings.
Currently in a buffer with a list of packages
Alex Kost skribis:
> Ludovic Courtès (2014-09-06 00:24 +0400) wrote:
>
>> BTW, M-x list-packages lists installed packages at the bottom, and with
>> a different face.
>>
>> What about doing something similar for guix-newest-available-packages & co.?
>
> No objection for a face, but I don't think
Ludovic Courtès (2014-09-06 00:24 +0400) wrote:
> BTW, M-x list-packages lists installed packages at the bottom, and with
> a different face.
>
> What about doing something similar for guix-newest-available-packages & co.?
No objection for a face, but I don't think such sorting should be the
defa
BTW, M-x list-packages lists installed packages at the bottom, and with
a different face.
What about doing something similar for guix-newest-available-packages & co.?
Ludo’.
Alex Kost skribis:
> Ludovic Courtès (2014-09-05 12:26 +0400) wrote:
>
>> Alex Kost skribis:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I would like to know people's opinions about default key bindings.
>>>
>>> Currently in a buffer with a list of packages we have: "u"/"U" to
>>> unmark/unmark all. But it leaves no
Taylan Ulrich Bayirli/Kammer (2014-09-05 13:11 +0400) wrote:
> Alex Kost writes:
>
>> I would like to know people's opinions about default key bindings.
>
> Might be nice to be consistent with the package-menu-mode (M-x
> list-packages) interface:
>
> U package-menu-mark-upgrades
>
Ludovic Courtès (2014-09-05 12:26 +0400) wrote:
> Alex Kost skribis:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I would like to know people's opinions about default key bindings.
>>
>> Currently in a buffer with a list of packages we have: "u"/"U" to
>> unmark/unmark all. But it leaves no room for marking for upgrade an
Alex Kost writes:
> I would like to know people's opinions about default key bindings.
Might be nice to be consistent with the package-menu-mode (M-x
list-packages) interface:
U package-menu-mark-upgrades
d package-menu-mark-delete
i package-menu-mark-i
Hi!
Alex Kost skribis:
> Hello,
>
> I would like to know people's opinions about default key bindings.
>
> Currently in a buffer with a list of packages we have: "u"/"U" to
> unmark/unmark all. But it leaves no room for marking for upgrade and I
> just bound it to "^" which is not very good.
>
Hello,
I would like to know people's opinions about default key bindings.
Currently in a buffer with a list of packages we have: "u"/"U" to
unmark/unmark all. But it leaves no room for marking for upgrade and I
just bound it to "^" which is not very good.
So what about combining "unmark"/"unmar
14 matches
Mail list logo
