Re: feedback wanted for two new yum-utils

On 11/10/2009 07:02 PM, Seth Vidal wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009, Tim Lauridsen wrote:
>
>> On 11/09/2009 04:45 PM, Seth Vidal wrote:
>>> second:
>>> a command-line pipes/parsing "friendly" yum-util.
>>> http://skvidal.wordpress.com/2009/11/06/playing-with-another-yum-util/
>>
>> Nice example of how to make a yum utils, kind of a yum-cli light :) 
>> to make life easier for pearl heads :)
>> you need to check to return code from buildtransaction and bail out 
>> not 2 :).
>
>
> nod.
>
>
>> showing packages in a way to be handled by pipes is ok, but i don't 
>> feel good about install/update/remove packages in that way, we 
>> allready have yum shell for that, maybe we should work on making the 
>> return codes better in yum-cli instead.
>
> making the return codes better is fine - except that it won't cover 
> the 'machine parseable' part and I routinely get pinged about that. It 
> gets old.
>
what about adding a --pipe option or a list-pipe command to make yum-cli 
output in a more parseable way.

Ex.

yum list updates --pipe

or

yum list-pipe updates

the last on can be implemented as a plugin

it think that extending the current yum-cli is better than making a new 
light yum-cli.

I think the making it easier for non python apps to use yum is a good idea.

Tim