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

From: Anselm R Garbe <garbeam_AT_gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 12:18:19 +0100

On 14 February 2016 at 02:00, <git_AT_suckless.org> wrote:
> commit a6dc051e3744ce5b14c54d2d246d3e8258207e76
> Author: FRIGN <dev_AT_frign.de>
> AuthorDate: Sun Feb 14 01:48:48 2016 +0100
> Commit: FRIGN <dev_AT_frign.de>
> CommitDate: Sun Feb 14 02:00:14 2016 +0100
>
> No need for usage()
>
> There are 2 arguments why -v and -h are broken:
>
> 1) if you are running off git, -v will show the last stable
> release, effectively making this option useless.
> people running stable versions leave open an attack surface
> this way in case there are vulnerabilities found.
> 99% of the people are also using package managers to keep
> their software up to date, instead of running $TOOL -v to
> check how old it is.
> 2) -h is a sad excuse for not just looking at the manual page
> (man 1 slock). Given we accept a post_lock_command, we can't
> be as liberal and just intercept certain flags.
>
> I changed the manpage to reflect this change.

I agree with 20h here, I heavily dislike removing -v and -h. It is
good style to have those options in, at least in the past the suckless
tools reliably listed their usage and version using this approach.

The point here is, that very basic tools shouldn't have a man page, if
the usage is rather simple. usage() is also to prefer as a quick way
to check the right argument sequence at an occasion if you know the
command line tool in theory. It's quicker than reading a man page.

Also, in very limited embedded environments, you might end up without
man pages at hand, and at least on such hosts it is very good to have
a quick usage() reference to check for. Same applies for the version.

Removing this information reduces the code for no good reason imho.

BR,
Anselm
Received on Mon Feb 15 2016 - 12:18:19 CET