From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: util-linux-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:35692 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752319AbbALKWh (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Jan 2015 05:22:37 -0500 Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2015 11:22:32 +0100 From: Karel Zak To: Benno Schulenberg Cc: Util-Linux Subject: Re: [RFC] should --version report the program's true name? Message-ID: <20150112102232.GD20899@x2.net.home> References: <1420996501.3946435.212467333.26895F9A@webmail.messagingengine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <1420996501.3946435.212467333.26895F9A@webmail.messagingengine.com> Sender: util-linux-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 06:15:01PM +0100, Benno Schulenberg wrote: > > $ ln -s setarch foo echo ".so man8/setarch.8" > foo.8 > $ ./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). but we usually have man pages for the distributed symlinks :-) try "man i386" Karel -- Karel Zak http://karelzak.blogspot.com