Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 15:42:18 +0200 From: Robert Nordier <rnordier@iafrica.com> To: FreeBSD-gnats-submit@freebsd.org Subject: bin/1181: fsck(8) option parsing Message-ID: <199605091342.PAA01036@eac.iafrica.com> Resent-Message-ID: <199605091350.GAA05248@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>Number: 1181
>Category: bin
>Synopsis: fsck displays wrong char in "option?" diagnostic
>Confidential: no
>Severity: non-critical
>Priority: low
>Responsible: freebsd-bugs
>State: open
>Class: sw-bug
>Submitter-Id: current-users
>Arrival-Date: Thu May 9 06:50:01 PDT 1996
>Last-Modified:
>Originator: Robert Nordier
>Organization:
E.A.C.
>Release: FreeBSD 2.2-CURRENT i386
>Environment:
Irrelevant.
>Description:
I guess this is kind of picky, but fsck(8)'s getopt(3) parsing
seems unncessarily deviant, and also doesn't function as it did
originally (and as described in /usr/share/doc/smm/03.fsck).
The current behavior is:
fsck -xz
fsck: illegal option -- x
? option?
The original intention was:
fsck -xz
x option?
and the usual getopt() approach would be
fsck -xz
fsck: illegal option -- x
fsck: illegal option -- z
>How-To-Repeat:
See above.
>Fix:
Unless anyone thinks this is worth more than a 5-second fix, why
not substitute 'x' for '?' (in the first example). Then at least
the documentation is correct.
----- cut here -----
*** main.c.old Thu May 9 15:12:48 1996
--- main.c Thu May 9 15:13:06 1996
***************
*** 116,122 ****
break;
default:
! errexit("%c option?\n", ch);
}
}
argc -= optind;
--- 116,122 ----
break;
default:
! errexit("%c option?\n", optopt);
}
}
argc -= optind;
----- cut here -----
>Audit-Trail:
>Unformatted:
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199605091342.PAA01036>