That looks much better. I think CLIP compliance was expected.
Cstyle nit, lines 89-95: case statements should be aligned with the
enclosing switch statement.
-JZ
> Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 15:57:58 +0100
> From: Bart Blanquart <Bart.Blanquart at sun.com>
>
> On 02/20/09 06:26, Scott Rotondo wrote:
> >> I originally coded it using getopt, but that fails to handle "auths
> >> -ab username" correctly, as it can't tell if the "b" is the argument
> >> to "-a" or a (non-existant) option.
> >
> > This is a significant issue. Whether or not you use getopt() in the
> > implementation, the command syntax should be getopt-compliant. In other
> > words, the example above should check if the user has the authorization
> > called "b". The easiest way to achieve getopt-compliance, of course, is
> > to use getopt().
>
> On 02/19/09 23:02, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
> > No, that's unambiguous. If -a takes an argument, it _cannot_ be
> > followed by other options in the same word; in "-ab", "b" is _always_
> > the argument to -a.
>
> Thanks for the feedback.
>
> I find the way getopt() does the concatenated option+argument odd (hence
> why I wrote the version that was up for review to require a space
> between the option and argument), but as allowing such concatenated
> seems to be the expected behaviour:
>
> an updated webrev is now available at
> http://cr.opensolaris.org/~bartbl/6251549
>
> and its testing output is available at
> http://cr.opensolaris.org/~bartbl/6251549-testing
>
>
> Bart
> _______________________________________________
> security-discuss mailing list
> security-discuss at opensolaris.org
>
