Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2026 10:47:35 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 292596] Disjunction of behavior between /usr/sbin/pw and its manpage Message-ID: <bug-292596-227@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
index | next in thread | raw e-mail
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=292596 Bug ID: 292596 Summary: Disjunction of behavior between /usr/sbin/pw and its manpage Product: Base System Version: 14.3-RELEASE Hardware: Any OS: Any Status: New Severity: Affects Some People Priority: --- Component: bin Assignee: bugs@FreeBSD.org Reporter: bsdpr@phoe.frmug.org In the pw(8) manpage we are instructed that the -n option is optional for the lock and unlock sub-commands, however this option is rejected and not mentioned in the usage message: # pw lock -n foobar pw: illegal option -- n usage pw: unlock [switches] -V etcdir alternate /etc locations -C config configuration file -q quiet operation # pw unlock -n foobar pw: illegal option -- n usage pw: unlock [switches] -V etcdir alternate /etc locations -C config configuration file -q quiet operation The sub-command synopsis is given as follows in the manpage: pw [-R rootdir] [-V etcdir] lock [-n] name|[-u] uid [-q] [-C config] pw [-R rootdir] [-V etcdir] unlock [-n] name|[-u] uid [-q] [-C config] To fix this situation, either implement -n for all sub-commands, or remove -n from the synopsis and the numerous paragraphs where it is mentioned. I favor the first course of action because it unifies the command usage among all its sub-commands. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.home | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-292596-227>