On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 11:40:54PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Roger Leigh writes ("Re: [buildd-tools-devel] Bug#708163: schroot should
> treat options after non-option as non-option"):
> > On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 05:43:40PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > $ schroot -c unstable-i386 id -u
> > > E: required parameter is missing in 'user'
> > >
> > > This is a bit silly. It would be better if schroot stopped processing
> > > schroot options as soon as it saw the command (ie, the first
> > > non-option).
> >
> > You can use -- to separate options from non-options explicitly.
>
> Sorry, yes, I should have said I knew that.
>
> > We are using libboost-program-options for the options parsing; it
> > does provide for customising the parsing process somewhat, but I'm
> > not certain how difficult (or possible) such a change will be. I'll
> > certainly look into it.
>
> Hmm. I had a look at the online docs for Boost 1.53.0 and it doesn't
> seem to be able to do it. The obvious place for it would be one of
> the flags in boost::program_options::command_line_style::style_t. I
> also looked for a way to use a positional parameter callback to abort
> the command line processing loop, but didn't find out.
>
> Should I file a wishlist bug against the boost library and set this
> one to block it ?That would be appreciated, thanks. Sorry for the delay on my part. Regards, Roger -- .''`. Roger Leigh : :' : Debian GNU/Linux http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/ `. `' Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/ `- GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848 Please GPG sign your mail.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
