On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 9:15 PM, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
On 23/07/13 11:27, Allan McRae wrote:
On 22/07/13 11:09, Jason St. John wrote:
Unify the formatting of the --help switch for pacman utils. All of the pacman utils will now output help text using the following format:
util-name (pacman) v<pacman version>
one line description of util's purpose
Usage: util-name [options]
-b, --bar whatever --bar does -f, --foo whatever --foo does -h, --help display this help message
Reported-by: Karol Błażewicz <karol.blazewicz@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Jason St. John <jstjohn@purdue.edu> --- This commit should address the issues raised by Karol Błażewicz in this mail: https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2013-June/017391.html
Looks fine. Query for everyone below:
src/util/cleanupdelta.c | 9 ++++----- src/util/pacsort.c | 5 +++-- src/util/pactree.c | 7 ++++--- src/util/testdb.c | 12 +++++------- src/util/testpkg.c | 6 +++--- src/util/vercmp.c | 17 +++++++++-------- 6 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/util/cleanupdelta.c b/src/util/cleanupdelta.c index 4f34435..b13d770 100644 --- a/src/util/cleanupdelta.c +++ b/src/util/cleanupdelta.c @@ -24,8 +24,6 @@ #include <alpm.h> #include <alpm_list.h>
-#define BASENAME "cleanupdelta" -
It looks like we defined this in dea9b3bc when we stopped using basename to output the program name. Given it is only ever used in one place, is there any reason to keep it?
Ping on this question.
(and lesson for everyone - the more minimal your changes in a patch, the more chance it gets accepted quickly...)
Should I resubmit this with the BASENAME change done in a separate patch? Or should I resubmit with each file done in a separate patch? Jason