On Fri, Oct 24, 2014, at 04:53, JWP wrote:
> if (debug)
> - printf(_("response from date command = %s"), date_resp);
> + printf(_("The response was: %s"), date_resp);
> if (strncmp(date_resp, magic, sizeof(magic) - 1) != 0) {
> warnx(_("The date command issued by %s returned "
> - "unexpected results\n"
> - "The command was:\n %s\n"
> - "The response was:\n %s"),
> - program_invocation_short_name, date_command, date_resp);
> + "unexpected results\nThe response was: %s"
> + "The command was: %s"),
> + program_invocation_short_name, date_resp, date_command);
Oh no. If the user does not use --debug, hwclock will warn that
a command gave an unexpected result and will print the command
but not the actual result. This is silly.
By the way, the --debug flag is improperly named. It should actually
be called --verbose, because in all the rest of util-linux debug messages
are never gettextized (using calls to _()). The use of --debug is not
meant to debug hwclock itself but to debug the user's use of hwclock.
It should therefore be called --verbose.
Benno
--
http://www.fastmail.fm - A fast, anti-spam email service.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe util-linux" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
