port uninstall silently ignores unknown flags?
I've been sitting here typing variations $ sudo port uninstall --force subversion @1.4.2_0 for ten minutes before somebody nice on IRC told me to try -f. Shouldn't port complain when it sees an unknown flag? --dave -- David Glasser | glasser@mit.edu | http://www.davidglasser.net/
On Nov 9, 2006, at 2:19 PM, David Glasser wrote:
I've been sitting here typing variations
$ sudo port uninstall --force subversion @1.4.2_0
for ten minutes before somebody nice on IRC told me to try -f. Shouldn't port complain when it sees an unknown flag?
It does for short arguments, but not for long-form ones (see "port.tcl" line 2197). I'm not sure if the existing behavior is used by anyone, or not, though. -- Daniel J. Luke +========================================================+ | *---------------- dluke@geeklair.net ----------------* | | *-------------- http://www.geeklair.net -------------* | +========================================================+ | Opinions expressed are mine and do not necessarily | | reflect the opinions of my employer. | +========================================================+
On Nov 9, 2006, at 11:30 AM, Daniel J. Luke wrote:
On Nov 9, 2006, at 2:19 PM, David Glasser wrote:
I've been sitting here typing variations
$ sudo port uninstall --force subversion @1.4.2_0
for ten minutes before somebody nice on IRC told me to try -f. Shouldn't port complain when it sees an unknown flag?
It does for short arguments, but not for long-form ones (see "port.tcl" line 2197).
I'm not sure if the existing behavior is used by anyone, or not, though.
The long options are used in several actions. The qualification of these long options is up to individual actions. Currently where these are used they test for the presence of particular options, but don't look for unknown or malformed options they don't know about. It would be possible, though somewhat tiresome, to validate those for each action. James
-- Daniel J. Luke +========================================================+ | *---------------- dluke@geeklair.net ----------------* | | *-------------- http://www.geeklair.net -------------* | +========================================================+ | Opinions expressed are mine and do not necessarily | | reflect the opinions of my employer. | +========================================================+
_______________________________________________ macports-users mailing list macports-users@lists.macosforge.org http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-users
On 11/9/06, James Berry <jberry@macports.org> wrote:
The long options are used in several actions. The qualification of these long options is up to individual actions. Currently where these are used they test for the presence of particular options, but don't look for unknown or malformed options they don't know about. It would be possible, though somewhat tiresome, to validate those for each action.
OK, I think I see where this behavior comes from in the architecture. Chalk me up as one user who wishes there was validation, but not quite enough to learn tcl and actually be useful and submit a patch, then. --dave -- David Glasser | glasser@mit.edu | http://www.davidglasser.net/
participants (3)
-
Daniel J. Luke
-
David Glasser
-
James Berry