Remove toolchain --install/--uninstall/--install-dir#1614
Conversation
Fabien-Chouteau
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So I worked on the same thing in parallel 🤦♂️
In my commit I renamed alr toolchain to alr default-toolchain because I think it will remove some confusion on how Alire handles toolchains.
| @@ -1,44 +1,53 @@ | |||
| """ | |||
| Check folders when installing binary compiler crates at a custom location | |||
| through `alr get` | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why not alr install --prefix here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just because it is the closest to what the test was doing. We could add a new test that checks a similar idea but with alr install.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
alr toolchain --install was introduced for people that wanted to get a toolchain from the Alire index but not use it in the Alire context.
I feel like alr install is a better option for this use case.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sure, I'll adapt the test.
|
|
||
| Toolchain installation for use by Alire is still possible using | ||
| `alr toolchain --select`. For the installation of toolchains outside of Alire | ||
| management, `alr get` covers the `alr toolchain --install --install-dir` use |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Same as below, why not recommend alr install --prefix here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Again, because for people that was using --install-dir, this is what they would find more similar. But if we want people to just use alr install, we can omit alr get altogether.
:-(
This will break a lot of workflows/actions out there, ours included... Do you think there's that much risk of confusion, given the |
That's why we are doing a major release ^^
I think we do see misconceptions from time to time. Which makes me thing we could also take this opportunity to rename |
I feel this is a point where I must resist, and not so much for the brokenness but because I find I'd be less objecting to But I have no more arguments so if you're truly convinced this will be a net gain, I won't object further.
Sounds good, I saw the exchange with Maxim. I'm a bit uneasy about introducing such breaking changes so late in the RC period, in particular if we dont have a 2nd RC (which I didn't plan to have). What do you think of having the old name as an undocumented alias that emits a warning pointing to the new command? |
|
The last push completes the removal. Any command renamings I would do in a separate PR. |
d42f58e to
837d244
Compare
|
@mosteo I started working on the |
Fixes #1612