On 03/09/13 07:48, Allan McRae wrote: > On 03/09/13 06:52, Jason St. John wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 9:15 PM, Allan McRae <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On 23/07/13 11:27, Allan McRae wrote: >>>> On 22/07/13 11:09, Jason St. John wrote: >>>>> Unify the formatting of the --help switch for pacman utils. >>>>> All of the pacman utils will now output help text using the following >>>>> format: >>>>> >>>>> util-name (pacman) v<pacman version> >>>>> >>>>> one line description of util's purpose >>>>> >>>>> Usage: util-name [options] >>>>> >>>>> -b, --bar whatever --bar does >>>>> -f, --foo whatever --foo does >>>>> -h, --help display this help message >>>>> >>>>> Reported-by: Karol Błażewicz <[email protected]> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Jason St. John <[email protected]> >>>>> --- >>>>> This commit should address the issues raised by Karol Błażewicz in this >>>>> mail: >>>>> https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2013-June/017391.html >>>>> >>>> >>>> Looks fine. Query for everyone below: >>>> >>>>> src/util/cleanupdelta.c | 9 ++++----- >>>>> src/util/pacsort.c | 5 +++-- >>>>> src/util/pactree.c | 7 ++++--- >>>>> src/util/testdb.c | 12 +++++------- >>>>> src/util/testpkg.c | 6 +++--- >>>>> src/util/vercmp.c | 17 +++++++++-------- >>>>> 6 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/src/util/cleanupdelta.c b/src/util/cleanupdelta.c >>>>> index 4f34435..b13d770 100644 >>>>> --- a/src/util/cleanupdelta.c >>>>> +++ b/src/util/cleanupdelta.c >>>>> @@ -24,8 +24,6 @@ >>>>> #include <alpm.h> >>>>> #include <alpm_list.h> >>>>> >>>>> -#define BASENAME "cleanupdelta" >>>>> - >>>> >>>> It looks like we defined this in dea9b3bc when we stopped using basename >>>> to output the program name. Given it is only ever used in one place, >>>> is there any reason to keep it? >>> >>> Ping on this question. >>> >>> (and lesson for everyone - the more minimal your changes in a patch, the >>> more chance it gets accepted quickly...) >>> >>> >>> >> >> Should I resubmit this with the BASENAME change done in a separate >> patch? Or should I resubmit with each file done in a separate patch? >> > > No need. I believe I got the OK for this on IRC. I will pull this > patch next time I do some pacman work. >
But it would help if you could resend the patch rebased on master. I am having difficulty applying it and do not have the time to fix it myself. A
