[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: getprogname and libtool
From: |
Jim Meyering |
Subject: |
Re: getprogname and libtool |
Date: |
Tue, 18 Oct 2016 14:57:36 -0700 |
On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Bruno Haible <address@hidden> wrote:
> Daiki Ueno wrote:
>> > The consequence is that in packages that use GNU libtool, such programs
>> > will
>> > print "lt-prog" instead of "prog" in their usage message and other
>> > messages.
>> > This will disturb
>> > * the hacker who uses the programs before doing "make install",
>> > * the test suite.
>>
>> Sorry, I'm skeptical about this. Would it be useful to test the
>> getprogname functionality from outside of test-getprogname.c?
>
> Here's what I mean: In the GNU gettext package, currently, after having built
> it from source, I can do
>
> $ cd gettext-tools/src
> $ ./xgettext --help | head -n 1
> Aufruf: ./xgettext [OPTION] [EINGABEDATEI]...
>
> When I do the replacements (below) to get rid of the use of the module
> 'progname',
> I get
>
> $ cd gettext-tools/src
> $ ./xgettext --help | head -n 1
> Aufruf: lt-xgettext [OPTION] [EINGABEDATEI]...
>
> As you can see,
> - The usage message now doesn't show the path of the executable, only its
> basename. I view this as a regression, because power users often adjust
> PATH and then occasionally by mistake invoke a program from an unintended
> location. (This is reiterating my point 1) from
> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2006-01/msg00122.html.)
> - The basename now starts with "lt-".
>
> In summary, I like Pino's 'getprogname' module because it nicely solves the
> problems he listed in
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2016-03/msg00048.html.
>
> But I disagree with the idea that the 'program_name' module and the
> set_program_name() function should be deprecated, as expressed in
> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2016-09/msg00007.html
Hi Bruno,
I did not mean to imply by that message that we should eliminate every
use of the program_name module. My desire is more to avoid accidental
use of it when the getprogname module would be more appropriate.
- getprogname: comments and test failure on Cygwin, Bruno Haible, 2016/10/16
- Re: getprogname: comments and test failure on Cygwin, Pádraig Brady, 2016/10/16
- Re: getprogname: comments and test failure on Cygwin, Jim Meyering, 2016/10/16
- Re: getprogname: comments and test failure on Cygwin, Daiki Ueno, 2016/10/18
- getprogname and libtool, Bruno Haible, 2016/10/18
- Re: getprogname and libtool, Daiki Ueno, 2016/10/18
- Re: getprogname and libtool, Jim Meyering, 2016/10/18
- Re: getprogname and libtool, Bruno Haible, 2016/10/18
- Re: getprogname and libtool,
Jim Meyering <=
- Re: getprogname and libtool, Bruno Haible, 2016/10/18
- Re: getprogname and libtool, Jim Meyering, 2016/10/18
- Re: getprogname and libtool, Bruno Haible, 2016/10/18
- Re: getprogname: comments and test failure on Cygwin, Jim Meyering, 2016/10/18
- Re: getprogname: comments and test failure on Cygwin, Bruno Haible, 2016/10/18