[systemd-devel] [PATCH] systemctl: resolve duplicate -f option in doc

[Lennart Poettering]

On Mon, 26.03.12 23:58, Lennart Poettering (lennart at poettering.net) wrote:

> On Sun, 18.03.12 20:28, Dave Reisner (d at falconindy.com) 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.