On 07/18/2017 04:33 PM, Ruediger Meier wrote:
> 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!?
>
I don't how it would be misunderstood, it's pretty straight forward
language.
I think the number could be helpful for complex commands like:
hwclock --predict --date jan 10 2017 --utc foo --noadjfile
hwclock: 3 too many arguments given
>
>> - errtryhelp(EXIT_FAILURE);
>> + errtryhelp(EX_USAGE);
>
> What about changing also the last other errtryhelp(EXIT_FAILURE) to
> EX_USAGE, 5 lines above?
Good point. Pushed the change.
>
>
>> }
>>
>> 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
>
--
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
