From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: util-linux-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.28]:54225 "EHLO out4-smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750872AbbAKRPD (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Jan 2015 12:15:03 -0500 Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 241F420320 for ; Sun, 11 Jan 2015 12:15:02 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1420996501.3946435.212467333.26895F9A@webmail.messagingengine.com> From: Benno Schulenberg To: "Util-Linux" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Subject: [RFC] should --version report the program's true name? Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2015 18:15:01 +0100 Sender: util-linux-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: $ ln -s setarch foo $ ./foo --version foo from util-linux 2.25.634-8501-dirty But util-linux does not contain any program called "foo": $ man foo No manual entry for foo Shouldn't --version report the name of the original program instead of the name of the binary? Just like the last line of the --help output does: $ ./foo --help | tail -1 For more details see setarch(8). Benno -- http://www.fastmail.com - A no graphics, no pop-ups email service