On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 3:04 PM, Mark Constable <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2008-05-28, Xavier wrote: >> > --source = -S >> > --noconfirm = -n >> > --noprogressbar = -N >> > --holdver = -H >> > --forcever = ? >> > --asroot = ? > > Someone else suggested -0 and -F. The only extra I would > suggest is an additional check for "--help" so for those > occasions when longopts do get used, for assistance, that > both -h and --help shows the new shortopts usage list. >
Yeah, I used -O and -F for the two missing ones. Oh wait, I just realize there is a confusion here between O and 0. Here is what Allan said : "We could use -O for --asroot because root tends to have user id 0." He suggested using the o letter because it looks like 0 number. In my mind, short opts were always letter too, so I followed his suggestion. I renamed the internal fakeroot -F option to -X. About --help : as long as you write an invalid option, usage will be displayed. And when using a longopt, I guess it will try to use the second - as an option which is invalid. >> So what do people think about a short opt only makepkg? > > I think it's a great idea and would simplify the argument > passing in makepkg. Longopts are politcially correct but > shortopts, especially if it streamlines code, still works > just fine once the changes are understood by end users. > > There are 62 possibilities... a-zA-Z0-9. > >> I would like more feedbacks on the idea as I have a patch mostly >> working but there is no reason to polish it if the idea is wrong and >> if the patch will be rejected in any cases. > > Not that my vote counts for anything but I'm all for it. > > +1 as they say > ok, thanks for the comments. _______________________________________________ pacman-dev mailing list [email protected] http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev
