cvs commit: src/usr.sbin/pkg_install/add main.c pkg_add.1
main.c pkg_create.1 src/usr.sbin/pkg_install/delete main.c pkg_delete.1
src/usr.sbin/pkg_install/info main.c pkg_info.1 ...
Joe Marcus Clarke
marcus at freebsd.org
Tue Jun 3 17:09:02 UTC 2008
Remko Lodder wrote:
> On Tue, June 3, 2008 5:18 pm, Florent Thoumie wrote:
>> On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 9:27 PM, Coleman Kane <cokane at freebsd.org> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2008-05-30 at 12:58 -0700, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
>>>> I am curious what is our policy on using long options in the base
>>>> (if any)? I believe that pkg_install is the first non-contributed base
>>>> system utility to actually widely use it. For some reason I've got
>>>> impression that use of getopt_long is considered "the Linux/GNU way",
>>>> this API provided for compatibility purposes and its use in base system
>>>> is discouraged. Quick grep through /use/src seemingly supports that.
>>>> Can someone confirm/reject?
>>> I am not sure about policy, however I do appreciate the long options
>>> sometimes. Primarily, I think they are useful (in a self-documenting
>>> way) for use in shell scripts. I tend to prefer the single-char options
>>> when I am doing the administration myself.
>> I'm not aware of such policy.
>> I think they're useful because as far as pkg_install is concerned, we
>> are using single-char options that are hard to match to the action
>> it's doing. Here are a couple examples:
>> - pkg_create -h doesn't call usage() because it's already taken.
>> - it's easy to confuse pkg_info -o and pkg_info -O.
>> I'll back it out if general consensus is that long options should be
>> Florent Thoumie
>> flz at FreeBSD.org
>> FreeBSD Committer
> I like the change (long opts).
I don't see why we should abandon something that is convenient for our
users just because Linux does it.
Joe Marcus Clarke
FreeBSD GNOME Team :: gnome at FreeBSD.org
FreeNode / #freebsd-gnome
More information about the cvs-src