freebsd stable - Aug 2015 - regression from previous version of pw

On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 03:49:52PM +0200, Willem Jan Withagen
wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> In the previous version before Bapt upgraded pw(8) I was allowed to do
> 	pw useradd -V /etc
> 
> Even though the manual page instructed otherwise.
> 
> The new version sticks to the manual page and generates:
> pw: illegal option -- V
> 
> I'm going to change the scripts, but perhaps others will be bitten too.
> Up to Bapt to decide what to do with this.
The code has been changed to respect what the manual and the help output was
showing: -V should be passed before the subcommand

The reason for this is was to make the code more easily maintenable and
understandable.

if really that is too painful I can allow again -V to be also passed after the
subcommand but at the price of complicating the code.

Best regards,
Bapt
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/attachments/20150824/9d6e9c46/attachment.bin>

On 24-8-2015 16:01, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 03:49:52PM +0200, Willem Jan Withagen wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> In the previous version before Bapt upgraded pw(8) I was allowed to do
>> 	pw useradd -V /etc
>>
>> Even though the manual page instructed otherwise.
>>
>> The new version sticks to the manual page and generates:
>> pw: illegal option -- V
>>
>> I'm going to change the scripts, but perhaps others will be bitten
too.
>> Up to Bapt to decide what to do with this.
> 
> The code has been changed to respect what the manual and the help output
was
> showing: -V should be passed before the subcommand
You just changed that now? Or my version is lagging behind?
Text is much more clear than the 'illegal option' espacially now there
is also the -R stuff. So it made me wonder.
> The reason for this is was to make the code more easily maintenable and
> understandable.
You fixed the code, so it is your prerogative.
> if really that is too painful I can allow again -V to be also passed after
the
> subcommand but at the price of complicating the code.
Nope, I've already changed the code I have.
Was about 5 lines in a shell script.

My comment was more as general notification, in case somebody else ran
into the same. Nobody thus far ran into this, so it won't be major anyways.

Thanx,
--WjW