On Mon, 26.03.12 23:58, Lennart Poettering ([email protected]) wrote: > On Sun, 18.03.12 20:28, Dave Reisner ([email protected]) wrote: > > Heya, > > > The man page listed -f as the shortopt for both --follow and --force, > > but the shortopt only applied to --force. Since --force is the dangerous > > option, take away the shortopt and give it to --follow. Users should be > > reminded that what they're about to do isn't standard procedure. > > Hmm, so I change this the other way round, so that -f is short for > --force, not for --follow. > > This main reason is simply that -f as --force was already that way a > long time ago and we included the systemctl interface in our interface > stability promise. > > Besides at least I myself while debugging systemd quite often have to > type "systemctl reboot -ff", but that'd be much hrder with "systemctl > reboot --force --force"...
Hmm thinking about it, it might actually make sense that -f really is short for both --force and --follow. Given that no command uses both in conjunction anyway this should be fairly safe I think. That way --force or -f would enable force mode for "systemctl enable", "systemctl reboot". And --follow or -f would enable follow mode for "systemctl status". Opinions? Is this kind of overloading ugly? I am tempted to say it's pretty OK, what do you say? Lennart -- Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc. _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
