On 06.10.21 10:40, Michael Adler wrote: > Hi Jan, > >> ...except that --update already exists and has a different semantic. > > this got me thinking: -u is a no-op if -f is also specified [1]. > Thus, it would be possible to re-use this parameter for the purposes of my > patch. Of course, if people rely on this > no-op (without knowing), they might be surprised. >
Worse would be that the switch will gain different semantics, depending on whether -f is used or not. I would rather go for --preserve. Jan > Kind regards, > Michael > > [1] > https://github.com/siemens/efibootguard/blob/c8ad20f36145bb4cd5a61549fd96bb7cbde0f144/tools/bg_setenv.c#L684 > -- Siemens AG, T RDA IOT Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "EFI Boot Guard" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/efibootguard-dev/0fe9ea3f-4696-1a4d-ac3b-7de7cf179aa5%40siemens.com.
