On Tuesday 18 July 2017, J William Piggott wrote:
> hwclock --get foobar
> hwclock: 3 too many arguments given
>
> Fixed:
>
> hwclock --get foobar
> hwclock: 1 too many arguments given
>
> Signed-off-by: J William Piggott <elseifthen@xxxxxxx>
> ---
> sys-utils/hwclock.c | 5 +++--
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/sys-utils/hwclock.c b/sys-utils/hwclock.c
> index 9745158..9b313cf 100644
> --- a/sys-utils/hwclock.c
> +++ b/sys-utils/hwclock.c
> @@ -1448,9 +1448,10 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
> }
> }
>
> - if (argc > optind) {
> + argc -= optind;
> + if (argc > 0) {
> warnx(_("%d too many arguments given"), argc);
Oops, sorry for this regression ;)
Anyways, at least for me "1 too many arguments given" does not sound
really understandable. Maybe we don't need that number at all!?
> - errtryhelp(EXIT_FAILURE);
> + errtryhelp(EX_USAGE);
What about changing also the last other errtryhelp(EXIT_FAILURE) to
EX_USAGE, 5 lines above?
> }
>
> if (!ctl.adj_file_name)
> --
> 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
--
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
