On Tue, 2008-06-03 at 18:45 +0200, 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > FreeBSD Committer > > > > I like the change (long opts). > > Cheers, > REmko >
like++; -- Coleman Kane
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
