Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2015 16:16:44 +0200 From: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org> To: Willem Jan Withagen <wjw@digiware.nl> Cc: "stable@freebsd.org" <stable@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: regression from previous version of pw Message-ID: <20150824141644.GI93486@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> In-Reply-To: <55DB2521.5030502@digiware.nl> References: <55DB2100.4070304@digiware.nl> <20150824140133.GG93486@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> <55DB2521.5030502@digiware.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--o7gdRJTuwFmWapyH Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 04:07:29PM +0200, Willem Jan Withagen wrote: > On 24-8-2015 16:01, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 03:49:52PM +0200, Willem Jan Withagen wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> In the previous version before Bapt upgraded pw(8) I was allowed to do > >> pw useradd -V /etc > >> > >> Even though the manual page instructed otherwise. > >> > >> The new version sticks to the manual page and generates: > >> pw: illegal option -- V > >> > >> I'm going to change the scripts, but perhaps others will be bitten too. > >> Up to Bapt to decide what to do with this. > >=20 > > The code has been changed to respect what the manual and the help outpu= t was > > showing: -V should be passed before the subcommand >=20 > You just changed that now? Or my version is lagging behind? > Text is much more clear than the 'illegal option' espacially now there > is also the -R stuff. So it made me wonder. I changed that when bringing in the -R stuff so long ago. Illegal option is= made by getopt(3) directly but I can make it nicer and show a message that expla= ins. >=20 > > The reason for this is was to make the code more easily maintenable and > > understandable. >=20 > You fixed the code, so it is your prerogative. Well I also want the feedback from users, as if it is only me, given how th= ings are documented and the whole organisation of the pw(8) code (even before my refactoring) it makes more sense as it is now. (this is the only behaviour = that changed on purpose, all others are considered as a bug and should be report= ed and fixed). >=20 > > if really that is too painful I can allow again -V to be also passed af= ter the > > subcommand but at the price of complicating the code. >=20 > Nope, I've already changed the code I have. > Was about 5 lines in a shell script. >=20 > My comment was more as general notification, in case somebody else ran > into the same. Nobody thus far ran into this, so it won't be major anyway= s. You are actually the second to report, the first was crochet which has be f= ixed straight forward. Best regards, Bapt --o7gdRJTuwFmWapyH Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iEYEARECAAYFAlXbJ0wACgkQ8kTtMUmk6EyMbwCdFCYQHSiYxKIsK7YWr19ZQzI1 wJQAoInx1Ur9mJPk135W+C5K65KUfeiZ =Kmlf -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --o7gdRJTuwFmWapyH--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20150824141644.GI93486>