On Sat, 2010-06-12 at 11:07 +0200, ext Yin Kangkai wrote: > On 2010-06-12, 16:50 +0800, Ameya Palande wrote: > > > > -options=$(getopt -o qvd:F: --long quilt,symbol:,dir:,fuzz: -- "$@") > > > > +options=$(getopt -o :vd:F:q --long verbose,dir:,fuzz:,quilt -- "$@") > > > ^ do we need the leading ':'? > > > > With leading ':' > > ------------------------- > > am...@chotu:~/repos/kernel-source$ ./scripts/sequence-patch.sh --test > > Usage: sequence-patch.sh [OPTION] > > ------------------------- > > What is the return value, i.e.: $?
Return value will be 1, since I am not modifying usage() function. > > Without leading ':' we get the following getopt warning > > ------------------------- > > am...@chotu:~/repos/kernel-source$ ./scripts/sequence-patch.sh --test > > getopt: unrecognized option '--test' > > Usage: sequence-patch.sh [OPTION] > > ------------------------- > > Is that a trick to support unsupported options? :) No. The trick is to get rid of "getopt:" string in the warning. > But we actually don't support "--test" (or --anythingelse), right? So Yes! We don't support these options. > when you specify the "--test", the right behaviour is give a warning, > and return value (i.e.: $?) is none-zero. Otherwise we break that > semantic. NO? I will send v3 of the patch which will give warning but won't print "getopt:" string. Thanks for the review! Cheers, Ameya. _______________________________________________ MeeGo-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev
