I am not sure what bikeshedding means in this case (it was all different when I was at school ;-)
However, as an ldomctl user, I would be happier if the usage was consistent with the man page: it makes everything seem more trustworthy. And once the machine is up and stable, you probably wont be using the command very often, and might need to quickly check if it is (eg) init-system or system-init. On 26 January 2017 at 12:33, Stefan Sperling <[email protected]> wrote: > I am not sure about the best way to fix this, but ldomctl's usage() > is rather bogus. It only mentions some of the supported commands. > The diff below adds the missing ones. > > However, I am tempted to just change all of it to something like this: > fprintf(stderr, "usage: ldomctl command [arguments]\n"); > and let people refer to the man page instead. > > Is this worth bikeshedding about? > > Index: ldomctl.c > =================================================================== > RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.sbin/ldomctl/ldomctl.c,v > retrieving revision 1.20 > diff -u -p -r1.20 ldomctl.c > --- ldomctl.c 9 Oct 2014 02:44:55 -0000 1.20 > +++ ldomctl.c 26 Jan 2017 11:16:30 -0000 > @@ -161,6 +161,11 @@ usage(void) > > fprintf(stderr, "usage: %s start|stop|panic domain\n", __progname); > fprintf(stderr, " %s status [domain]\n", __progname); > + fprintf(stderr, " logical domain configuration:\n", > __progname); > + fprintf(stderr, " %s list|dump\n", __progname); > + fprintf(stderr, " %s select|delete configuration\n", > __progname); > + fprintf(stderr, " %s download directory\n", __progname); > + fprintf(stderr, " %s init-system file\n", __progname); > exit(EXIT_FAILURE); > } > > >
