On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Bruno Haible <br...@clisp.org> wrote:
> Daiki Ueno wrote:
>> > The consequence is that in packages that use GNU libtool, such programs 
>> > will
>> > print "lt-prog" instead of "prog" in their usage message and other 
>> > messages.
>> > This will disturb
>> >   * the hacker who uses the programs before doing "make install",
>> >   * the test suite.
>> Sorry, I'm skeptical about this.  Would it be useful to test the
>> getprogname functionality from outside of test-getprogname.c?
> Here's what I mean: In the GNU gettext package, currently, after having built
> it from source, I can do
>   $ cd gettext-tools/src
>   $ ./xgettext --help | head -n 1
>   Aufruf: ./xgettext [OPTION] [EINGABEDATEI]...
> When I do the replacements (below) to get rid of the use of the module 
> 'progname',
> I get
>   $ cd gettext-tools/src
>   $ ./xgettext --help | head -n 1
>   Aufruf: lt-xgettext [OPTION] [EINGABEDATEI]...
> As you can see,
>   - The usage message now doesn't show the path of the executable, only its
>     basename. I view this as a regression, because power users often adjust
>     PATH and then occasionally by mistake invoke a program from an unintended
>     location. (This is reiterating my point 1) from
>     https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2006-01/msg00122.html.)
>   - The basename now starts with "lt-".
> In summary, I like Pino's 'getprogname' module because it nicely solves the
> problems he listed in
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2016-03/msg00048.html.
> But I disagree with the idea that the 'program_name' module and the
> set_program_name() function should be deprecated, as expressed in
> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2016-09/msg00007.html

Hi Bruno,

I did not mean to imply by that message that we should eliminate every
use of the program_name module. My desire is more to avoid accidental
use of it when the getprogname module would be more appropriate.

Reply via email to