Syslinux - Jun 2014 - [PATCH] utils/isohybrid.c: 007 (2nd try) Enable promised options -u, -m, -b

My first attempt ro enable the short options for --uefi, --mac, --mbr
was faulty. Here is the second try.

This change enables the options -u, -m, -b as promised by the help text.

--- isohybrid.c.006_opt_mbr_standalone	2014-06-22 20:10:49.000000000 +0200
+++ isohybrid.c.007_short_opts_umb	2014-06-23 19:52:59.000000000 +0200
@@ -262,7 +262,7 @@ check_option(int argc, char *argv[])
     char *err = NULL;
     int n = 0, ind = 0;
 
-    const char optstr[] = ":h:s:e:o:t:i:fcp?vV";
+    const char optstr[] = ":h:s:e:o:t:i:b:umfcp?vV";
     struct option lopt[] = \
     {
         { "entry", required_argument, NULL, 'e' },

> 
> My first attempt ro enable the short options for --uefi, --mac, --mbr
> was faulty. Here is the second try.
> 
> This change enables the options -u, -m, -b as promised by the help text.
> 
 
Are there any reasons to have chosen these specific letters?

For instance, I _might_ had thought of "-m" for "--mbr" and
"-a" for
"--mac" (Apple).

OTOH, perhaps "-a" also might match other future potential options 
too?

Regards,
Ady.

Third try to produce a digestible patch. Now with names like in Geert's
reformatted git patches.

This change enables the options -u, -m, -b as promised by the help text.

--- a/utils/isohybrid.c	2014-06-22 20:10:49.000000000 +0200
+++ b/utils/isohybrid.c	2014-06-23 19:52:59.000000000 +0200
@@ -262,7 +262,7 @@ check_option(int argc, char *argv[])
     char *err = NULL;
     int n = 0, ind = 0;
 
-    const char optstr[] = ":h:s:e:o:t:i:fcp?vV";
+    const char optstr[] = ":h:s:e:o:t:i:b:umfcp?vV";
     struct option lopt[] = \
     {
         { "entry", required_argument, NULL, 'e' },

Hi,

Ady:
> Are there any reasons to have chosen these specific letters?
> For instance, I _might_ had thought of "-m" for "--mbr"
and "-a" for
> "--mac" (Apple).
"-m" and "-u" where already chosen by the one who
implemented
"--uefi" and "--mac".

"-b" for "--mbr" was the best idea that came to me.

> OTOH, perhaps "-a" also might match other future potential
options
> too?
Possibly for "--adjust_iso_size", if this becomes desirable.


Have a nice day :)

Thomas

Op 2014-06-24 om 10:21 schreef Thomas Schmitt:
> 
> Third try to produce a digestible patch. Now with names like in Geert's
> reformatted git patches.
> 
> This change enables the options -u, -m, -b as promised by the help text.
> 
> --- a/utils/isohybrid.c	2014-06-22 20:10:49.000000000 +0200
> +++ b/utils/isohybrid.c	2014-06-23 19:52:59.000000000 +0200
> @@ -262,7 +262,7 @@ check_option(int argc, char *argv[])
>      char *err = NULL;
>      int n = 0, ind = 0;
>  
> -    const char optstr[] = ":h:s:e:o:t:i:fcp?vV";
> +    const char optstr[] = ":h:s:e:o:t:i:b:umfcp?vV";
>      struct option lopt[] = \
>      {
>          { "entry", required_argument, NULL, 'e' },
With some extra manual labour it is coomited to the leading source tree.

The extra work was in changing the e-mail part
that is used as commit message.

So thanks for updating the patch so it can be processed by `patch`
and please make it possible that is can be processed
by `git am`, "git apply mail".


Groeten
Geert Stappers
-- 
Leven en laten leven