[pacman-dev] [PATCH 3/3] Improve --help switch output for pacman utils

[Allan McRae]

On 03/09/13 06:52, Jason St. John wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 9:15 PM, Allan McRae <allan at 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 at gmail.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Jason St. John <jstjohn at 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?
> 

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