[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

bug#27820: guix package -u: order of argument is significant

From: Ricardo Wurmus
Subject: bug#27820: guix package -u: order of argument is significant
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 10:59:43 +0200
User-agent: mu4e 0.9.18; emacs 25.2.1

Ludovic Courtès <address@hidden> writes:

> Ricardo Wurmus <address@hidden> skribis:
>> Ludovic Courtès <address@hidden> writes:
>>> Mark H Weaver <address@hidden> skribis:
>>>> I agree that this is quite confusing.  Perhaps we should issue a warning
>>>> if the regexp begins with "-".
>>>> Also, perhaps we should *always* require an argument after "-u", even if
>>>> "-u" is at the end of the command line, failing otherwise.  Users would
>>>> then learn to always pass an argument to "-u", and thus would be less
>>>> likely to fall into this trap when adding more options after the "-u".
>>> I’m in favor of the former:
>>> diff --git a/guix/scripts/package.scm b/guix/scripts/package.scm
>>> index 8da7a3fd3..b6133b6af 100644
>>> --- a/guix/scripts/package.scm
>>> +++ b/guix/scripts/package.scm
>>> @@ -486,6 +486,11 @@ Install, remove, or upgrade packages in a single 
>>> transaction.\n"))
>>>                               arg-handler))))
>>>           (option '(#\u "upgrade") #f #t
>>>                   (lambda (opt name arg result arg-handler)
>>> +                   (when (string-prefix? "-" arg)
>>> +                     (warning (G_ "upgrade regexp '~a' looks like a \
>>> +command-line option~%")
>>> +                              arg)
>>> +                     (warning (G_ "is this intended?~%")))
>>>                     (let arg-handler ((arg arg) (result result))
>>>                       (values (alist-cons 'upgrade arg
>>>                                           ;; Delete any prior "upgrade all"
>>> Thoughts?
>> This seems good to me.  I just wonder if there are legitimate cases
>> where a package regexp would look like a command line option.  If that’s
>> not the case could we just “unread” the argument and parse it as the
>> next option?
> I thought about it but in theory “-” is perfectly legitimate, so I
> thought we’d rather not try to be smart.  Thoughts?

Is it really legitimate?  The regular expression is supposed to match on
package names and we have no packages starting with “-”.  And even if we
did (or the user has some oddly named packages in GUIX_PACKAGE_PATH),
they could write “^-”.  Or we could demand that the argument be quoted
(“'--foo'” or “"--foo"”) in that case.

It just seems like a really rare edge case to *want* it to behave as it
does now.


GPG: BCA6 89B6 3655 3801 C3C6  2150 197A 5888 235F ACAC

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]