Jim Meyering wrote:
> I've begun looking through these and like what I've seen.
> However, I'd prefer to avoid providing short-named options
> for --help and --version.
As you like. I did this for compatibility with the Linux /bin/hostname.
I don't know how important these short options are in practice.
But OTOH, I didn't follow compatibility with Linux /bin/hostname in two
points:
- When the machine has multiple long names (i.e. some aliases),
my "hostname -f" prints them all, one per line. Linux "/bin/hostname -f"
prints only the first one, but has an extra option "-a":
"/bin/hostname -a" prints the names except the first one, all in one
line, each followed by a space.
- "hostname -i" surrounds the IP address with brackets in my implementation,
whereas it does not in the Linux /bin/hostname.
> If we really want to fail for -s, -f, or -i when setting the hostname,
> then it's best to give an additional diagnostic saying why.
> But wouldn't it be better just to warn or ignore altogether?
I'm not a follower of the "garbage in, garbage out" principle. If some
options are clearly contradictory, it's better to point the human user to
his mistake than to do a random action that fits with one part of the
command line arguments but not with the other part. Especially if the
action is a destructive one, like setting a hostname or removing a file.
Bruno
_______________________________________________
Bug-coreutils mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
