Libguestfs - Jul 2016 - [PATCH] fish, fuse: Remove bogus '?' from short options.

I don't believe this has any use or meaning.  Currently the tools
don't process -?, eg:

$ guestfish -\?
Try `guestfish --help' for more information.

Therefore I believe this is erroneous.
---
 fish/fish.c         | 2 +-
 fuse/guestmount.c   | 2 +-
 fuse/guestunmount.c | 2 +-
 3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fish/fish.c b/fish/fish.c
index 49e1aaa..e639d3d 100644
--- a/fish/fish.c
+++ b/fish/fish.c
@@ -182,7 +182,7 @@ main (int argc, char *argv[])
 
   enum { HELP_OPTION = CHAR_MAX + 1 };
 
-  static const char *options = "a:c:d:Df:h::im:nN:rv?Vwx";
+  static const char *options = "a:c:d:Df:h::im:nN:rvVwx";
   static const struct option long_options[] = {
     { "add", 1, 0, 'a' },
     { "cmd-help", 2, 0, 'h' },
diff --git a/fuse/guestmount.c b/fuse/guestmount.c
index 4461c65..a5a5d37 100644
--- a/fuse/guestmount.c
+++ b/fuse/guestmount.c
@@ -149,7 +149,7 @@ main (int argc, char *argv[])
   /* The command line arguments are broadly compatible with (a subset
    * of) guestfish.  Thus we have to deal mainly with -a, -m and --ro.
    */
-  static const char *options = "a:c:d:im:no:rv?Vwx";
+  static const char *options = "a:c:d:im:no:rvVwx";
   static const struct option long_options[] = {
     { "add", 1, 0, 'a' },
     { "connect", 1, 0, 'c' },
diff --git a/fuse/guestunmount.c b/fuse/guestunmount.c
index dc9428c..ba753ef 100644
--- a/fuse/guestunmount.c
+++ b/fuse/guestunmount.c
@@ -76,7 +76,7 @@ main (int argc, char *argv[])
 {
   enum { HELP_OPTION = CHAR_MAX + 1 };
 
-  static const char *options = "qv?V";
+  static const char *options = "qvV";
   static const struct option long_options[] = {
     { "fd", 1, 0, 0 },
     { "help", 0, 0, HELP_OPTION },
-- 
2.7.4

On Monday, 18 July 2016 17:27:54 CEST Richard W.M. Jones
wrote:
> I don't believe this has any use or meaning.  Currently the tools
> don't process -?, eg:
> 
> $ guestfish -\?
> Try `guestfish --help' for more information.
> 
> Therefore I believe this is erroneous.
> ---
This and the virt-format patch (the one that removes unimplemented
options) LGTM, can you please merge them?  They do the same change,
after all.

Thanks,
-- 
Pino Toscano