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

[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 <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.
> 

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