[pacman-dev] [PATCH] contrib/paclist: Add "--help" command line parameter

[Dan McGee]

On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 10:21 AM, Lukas Fleischer
<archlinux at cryptocrack.de> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 03, 2011 at 11:56:09AM -0600, Dan McGee wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 6:44 PM, Lukas Fleischer
>> <archlinux at cryptocrack.de> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 10:10:14AM -0600, Dan McGee wrote:
>> >> On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 2:49 AM, Lukas Fleischer
>> >> <archlinux at cryptocrack.de> wrote:
>> >> > Be consistent with all other contrib scripts and support the "--help"
>> >> > command line switch. Fixes FS#27258.
>> >> Where are we on consistency here with what we expect out of scripts in
>> >> scripts/? All of these support -h/--help/-V/--version; is it logical
>> >> to require the same for scripts in contrib?
>> >
>> > You surely know... :) I only saw that bug report and found it weird that
>> > paclist displays a usage message if we pass no parameters but does
>> > nothing when it is invoked with "-h" (as opposed to all other contrib
>> > scripts).
>>
>> Well my gut tells me "yes, we should do this". Take a look at
>> scripts/Makefile.am, namely the first two lines- it would be nice if
>> we could do this in contrib/ as well.
>>
>> I'll apply this; awaiting further patches for fixing the rest of the
>> scripts and adding the above automake option. :)
>
> Alright! What to do with contrib scripts that currently do not have a
> version defined? I noticed that we're pretty inconsistent here:
>
> * All "official" scripts use the same version number as pacman(8). Also,
>  we include "(pacman)" in the version output, here.
>
> * Some contrib scripts use their own versioning scheme (e.g. there's
>  bacman 0.2.1 in master).
>
> * Some contrib scripts don't support "--version" and hence don't have a
>  version number at all.
>
> What we can do now is either tag scripts, that don't have a version
> number yet, with an initial value (such as 1.0.0) or always use the
> pacman version number. I'd prefer the latter. Opinions?

Given that they live in the pacman codebase now, I'd also prefer the
latter. This will also simplify bug reports and the like. I'd also
bump ones like bacman that have a version number to just using the
pacman one.

-Dan