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 ...

Alexey Dokuchaev danfe at
Wed Jun 4 04:18:15 UTC 2008

On Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 04:18:23PM +0100, 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.

I'd rather avoid long options in *BSD utilities.  They're hard to
remember, easy to confuse, while not really gaining us anything useful
(IMHO of course).


More information about the cvs-src mailing list