Re: [hackers] [slock] No need for usage() || FRIGN

From: Dimitris Papastamos <sin_AT_2f30.org>
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 11:01:11 +0000

On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 11:47:30AM +0100, Markus Teich wrote:
> Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 11:35:11AM +0100, FRIGN wrote:
> > > My considerations here were that it was quite arbitrary not to document -h,
> > > given we "allow" a command to be passed to slock as second + further
> > > arguments. However, I respect your stances on this and will revert it, but
> > > also document -h in the manpage.
> >
> > The right way to do this is to consider -h an invalid option. For invalid
> > options always print usage.
>
> Heyho,
>
> then we would have to assume users don't have *any* binary starting with a `-`
> that they might want to run after locking, but I can still live with that.

for this unlikely scenario, they can use an absolute path or a
relative one starting with ./
Received on Mon Feb 15 2016 - 12:01:11 CET