On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 04:33:12PM +1300, Mark Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was
heard to say:
> this is still borken
>
> piwakawaka:~# aptitude -qq update
> Expected a number after -q=, got q
> piwakawaka:~#
>
> which is a lie, there was no -q=
>
> Here's the relevant code from main.cc in aptitude-0.4.1:
>
> case 'q':
> if(optarg == 0)
> ++quiet;
> else
> {
> if(*optarg == '=')
> ++optarg;
>
> if(*optarg == 0)
> {
> fprintf(stderr, _("Expected a number after -q=\n"));
> return -1;
> }
>
> char *tmp;
> quiet = strtol(optarg, &tmp, 0);
>
> if(*tmp != '\0')
> {
> fprintf(stderr, _("Expected a number after -q=, got
> %s\n"),
> optarg);
> return -1;
> }
> }
> seen_quiet = true;
> break;
>
> Obviously the block dealing with the parameters needs to be defined
> contingent on the existance of the "=".Ew. > The -q=n syntax is anomalous, every other option uses -x <value>. I suggest > that -q= be deprecated and that -qqq or -q n be encouraged instead. I think that would be great, and it's how things originally worked; unfortunately, this led to user complaints (see earlier in this bug log). And, predictably, it appears that adding a weird special case had unforseen side effects (who woulda thunk it!) > A side note: Attempting to compile aptitude throws up a linker error about > not being able to find cppunit. I assume this should be added as a > build-depends ? That should only happen when you run "make check" or do a package build, and libcppunit-dev is a build-depends already AFAIK. Which version are you trying to build and how? Daniel
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
