Re: [PATCH 2/2] hwclock: fix regression from c3ae785

[J William Piggott <elseifthen@gmx.com>]

On 07/18/2017 04:33 PM, Ruediger Meier wrote:
> On Tuesday 18 July 2017, J William Piggott wrote:
>> hwclock --get foobar
>> hwclock: 3 too many arguments given
>>
>> Fixed:
>>
>> hwclock --get foobar
>> hwclock: 1 too many arguments given
>>
>> Signed-off-by: J William Piggott <elseifthen@gmx.com>
>> ---
>>  sys-utils/hwclock.c | 5 +++--
>>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/sys-utils/hwclock.c b/sys-utils/hwclock.c
>> index 9745158..9b313cf 100644
>> --- a/sys-utils/hwclock.c
>> +++ b/sys-utils/hwclock.c
>> @@ -1448,9 +1448,10 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
>>  		}
>>  	}
>>
>> -	if (argc > optind) {
>> +	argc -= optind;
>> +	if (argc > 0) {
>>  		warnx(_("%d too many arguments given"), argc);
> 
> Oops, sorry for this regression ;)
> 
> Anyways, at least for me "1 too many arguments given" does not sound 
> really understandable.  Maybe we don't need that number at all!?
>

I don't how it would be misunderstood, it's pretty straight forward
language.

I think the number could be helpful for complex commands like:

hwclock --predict --date jan 10 2017 --utc foo --noadjfile
hwclock: 3 too many arguments given


> 
>> -		errtryhelp(EXIT_FAILURE);
>> +		errtryhelp(EX_USAGE);
> 
> What about changing also the last other errtryhelp(EXIT_FAILURE) to 
> EX_USAGE, 5 lines above?

Good point. Pushed the change.

> 
> 
>>  	}
>>
>>  	if (!ctl.adj_file_name)
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe util-linux"
>> in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe util-linux" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>