On Sat, Aug 14, 2021 at 10:42:34AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > - while ((ret = getopt_long(argc, argv, "", longopts, &index)) != -1) {
> > + while ((ret = getopt_long_only(argc, argv, "d:f:m:sh", longopts, &index)) != -1) {
>
> Hmm. From the manpage:
>
> "(If the program accepts only long options, then optstring should be specified
> as an empty string (""), not NULL.)"
>
> So I think the empty opstring should remain.
>
> Also later in the man page:
>
> " getopt_long_only() is like getopt_long(), but '-' as well as "--" can
> indicate a long option."
>
> So maybe my advise to switch to getopt_long_only wasn't needed or is
> even not that helpful. Sorry, it's been a while since I wrote programs
> with non-trivial option parsing.
Nah, that's perfectly fine. I think the getopt_long_only() switch was
good. We don't anywhere use and shouldn't encourage using shortopts.
It's much more descriptive to see
$here/src/idmapped-mounts/idmapped-mounts \
--test-btrfs \
--device "$TEST_DEV" \
--mountpoint "$TEST_DIR" \
--scratch-device "$SCRATCH_DEV" \
--scratch-mountpoint "$SCRATCH_MNT"
--fstype "$FSTYP"
than it is to see e.g.:
$here/src/idmapped-mounts/idmapped-mounts \
-b
-d "$TEST_DEV" \
-m "$TEST_DIR" \
-s "$SCRATCH_DEV" \
-a "$SCRATCH_MNT" \
-f "$FSTYP"
In the second case I have to go check the source code to make sure that
this is the correct option. In the first case I can just read it in the
test itself. So I think we'll keep it but I'll remove the option string
like you pointed out.
Christian
