In message <20100514133351.GA27254 at nlxcldnl2.cl.intel.com> you wrote: > On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 03:37:23PM -0700, Michael Neuling wrote: > > In message <20100513144549.GB10534 at verge.net.au> you wrote: > > > On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 06:14:32PM +1000, Matt Evans wrote: > > > > > > > > In playing with kexec-tools I've noticed various problems with the argu ment > > > > passing, meaning one has to be careful to use certain forms of argument s > > > > and present them in a certain order. > > > > > [deletia] > > > > > > > > This behaviour is avoided by using the --opt= forms, but getopt does al low > > > > both and hence the user can have a fairly frustrating experience. (Doi ng > > > > something unexpected (ex. 3) is more annoying than an error exit (ex. 1 ) > > > > in many cases.) > > > > > > > > > > This seems reasonable to me. > > > > > > I've compiled tested the code on all architectures except cris (I don't > > > have my build environment at the moment). I found a minor problem on arm > > > which I have noted below. > > > > I suspect it'll break someones kexec scripts, so maybe we take this > > patch (or something like it) but bump up the release revision to 2.1? > > > How? > > Command lines that previously worked will continue to work. > Command lines that should have worked, but didn't, will now work. > Command lines that shouldn't have worked will still not work. > > The only scripts that may fail are those doing negative testing to > check for a form that *should* have been allowed--quite clearly, any > such negative testing was incorrect. Yeah, and like I said, users are pretty dumb, so put 1 and 1 together... :-) That being said, I don't have a strong opinion. If others think it's unlikely enough that anyone will hit it, then let's keep the release numbering as it is. ... and I think we all agree we need the patch. Mikey