[pacman-dev] [PATCH 1/3] Fix whitespace in pacsort.c and pactree.c
Replace spaces with tabs.
Remove extra spaces.
Signed-off-by: Jason St. John
Replace spaces with tabs in one instance.
Remove extra spaces.
Signed-off-by: Jason St. John
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
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
Signed-off-by: Jason St. John --- 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
#include -#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?
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 3:27 AM, Allan McRae
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
Signed-off-by: Jason St. John --- 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
#include -#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?
In case it matters, I removed the BASENAME define for testdb, testpkg, and vercmp too. Jason
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 3:35 AM, Jason St. John
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 3:27 AM, 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
Signed-off-by: Jason St. John --- 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
#include -#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?
In case it matters, I removed the BASENAME define for testdb, testpkg, and vercmp too.
Jason
Sorry for a late response. 'pacman -h' still doesn't tell you what does it do. $ testpkg usage: testpkg <package file> $ testpkg -h Cannot find the given file It would be nice if ' testpkg -h' printed help. If I'm reading testpkg.c patch right, it doesn't fix this. What about makepkg and other scripts? They're still missing a description of what they do from 'foo -h': $ head -3 /usr/bin/makepkg #!/usr/bin/bash # # makepkg - make packages compatible for use with pacman $ head -3 /usr/bin/paclog-pkglist #!/usr/bin/bash # # paclog-pkglist - Parse a log file into a list of currently installed packages $ head -3 /usr/bin/pacman-db-upgrade #!/usr/bin/bash -e # # pacman-db-upgrade - upgrade the local pacman db to a newer format
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
Signed-off-by: Jason St. John --- 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
#include -#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...)
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 9:15 PM, Allan McRae
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
Signed-off-by: Jason St. John --- 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
#include -#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
On 03/09/13 06:52, Jason St. John wrote:
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 9:15 PM, Allan McRae
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
Signed-off-by: Jason St. John --- 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
#include -#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?
No need. I believe I got the OK for this on IRC. I will pull this patch next time I do some pacman work. Allan
On 03/09/13 07:48, Allan McRae wrote:
On 03/09/13 06:52, Jason St. John wrote:
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 9:15 PM, Allan McRae
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
Signed-off-by: Jason St. John --- 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
#include -#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?
No need. I believe I got the OK for this on IRC. I will pull this patch next time I do some pacman work.
But it would help if you could resend the patch rebased on master. I am having difficulty applying it and do not have the time to fix it myself. A
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 1:55 AM, Allan McRae
On 03/09/13 07:48, Allan McRae wrote:
On 03/09/13 06:52, Jason St. John wrote:
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 9:15 PM, Allan McRae
wrote: 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?
No need. I believe I got the OK for this on IRC. I will pull this patch next time I do some pacman work.
But it would help if you could resend the patch rebased on master. I am having difficulty applying it and do not have the time to fix it myself.
A
Sure. I resubmitted it here: https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2013-September/017780.htm... Jason
participants (3)
-
Allan McRae
-
Jason St. John
-
Karol Blazewicz