cvs commit: src/usr.sbin/pkg_install/add main.c pkg_add.1 src/usr.sbin/pkg_install/create 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 ...

Remko Lodder remko at
Tue Jun 3 16:43:07 UTC 2008

On Tue, June 3, 2008 5:18 pm, Florent Thoumie wrote:
> On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 9:27 PM, Coleman Kane <cokane at> 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
>>> system
>>> (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
> avoided.
> --
> Florent Thoumie
> flz at
> FreeBSD Committer

I like the change (long opts).


/"\   Best regards,                      | remko at
\ /   Remko Lodder                       | remko at EFnet
 X          |
/ \   ASCII Ribbon Campaign              | Against HTML Mail and News

More information about the cvs-src mailing list