Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2004 09:47:53 +0200 From: Ruslan Ermilov <ru@freebsd.org> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: usage() in install(1) Message-ID: <20040207074753.GD43602@FreeBSD.org.ua> In-Reply-To: <2651.1076092124@critter.freebsd.dk> References: <20040206100605.GB27888@FreeBSD.org.ua> <2651.1076092124@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--+jhVVhN62yS6hEJ8
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="7LkOrbQMr4cezO2T"
Content-Disposition: inline
--7LkOrbQMr4cezO2T
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Fri, Feb 06, 2004 at 07:28:44PM +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message <20040206100605.GB27888@FreeBSD.org.ua>, Ruslan Ermilov writes:
>=20
> >Poul-Henning,
> >
> >I was very puzzled today trying to understand what is this line
> >number that install(1) is telling me about, especially that I've
> >just run it without any options, to see its usage.
> >
> >Please revert the part of the revision 1.62 where it was added.
> >I have the following reasons why it shouldn't have been done:
>=20
> I added it because the error messages from [x]install are singularly
> uninformative and at least the line numbers could serve as "guru
> meditation material".
>=20
There are four cases where it displays the usage:
1. When asked (``install -?'' or ``install'').
2. Incorrect option or missing option argument: getopt(3) takes
care of that.
3. Incompatible options are specified (-d and -s): the usage is
shown to let you decide what do you really want: -s or -d.
This is how most bin/ utils do that.
4. Wrong number or types of arguments: the usage is shown to
let you know the correct syntax.
> The correct solution of course is to replace the totally uninformative
> usage message
>=20
Come on now! How is it totally uninformative? It presents you
with the correct usage when you misuse it. You'd better watch
the cpio(1) usage. ;)
> which the program indiscriminatly spits out on any sort
> of trouble with intelligent informative error messages.
>=20
Only 3 and 4 lack the verbose reason, but this is how traditional
BSD programs behave. If it will make your life easier, feel free
to commit the attached patch.
Cheers,
--=20
Ruslan Ermilov
FreeBSD committer
ru@FreeBSD.org
--7LkOrbQMr4cezO2T
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=p
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Index: xinstall.c
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
RCS file: /home/ncvs/src/usr.bin/xinstall/xinstall.c,v
retrieving revision 1.63
diff -u -r1.63 xinstall.c
--- xinstall.c 7 Feb 2004 07:22:11 -0000 1.63
+++ xinstall.c 7 Feb 2004 07:43:22 -0000
@@ -171,8 +171,10 @@
argv +=3D optind;
=20
/* some options make no sense when creating directories */
- if (dostrip && dodir)
+ if (dostrip && dodir) {
+ warnx("-d and -s may not be specified together");
usage();
+ }
=20
/* must have at least two arguments, except when creating directories */
if (argc =3D=3D 0 || (argc =3D=3D 1 && !dodir))
@@ -215,8 +217,10 @@
}
=20
/* can't do file1 file2 directory/file */
- if (argc !=3D 2)
+ if (argc !=3D 2) {
+ warnx("wrong number or types of arguments");
usage();
+ }
=20
if (!no_target) {
if (stat(*argv, &from_sb))
--7LkOrbQMr4cezO2T--
--+jhVVhN62yS6hEJ8
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD)
iD8DBQFAJJgpUkv4P6juNwoRAop9AJ9LRiIbpjwtL4LGw8FeTIoFZwWlLwCeLZUV
tjIlx4HzHxyfbea6Z472Jno=
=HxLv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--+jhVVhN62yS6hEJ8--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040207074753.GD43602>