Bug 26502
Summary: | network-functions-ipv6 "missing option" should be "missing parameter" | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Retired] Red Hat Linux | Reporter: | Christian Rose <menthos> |
Component: | initscripts | Assignee: | Bill Nottingham <notting> |
Status: | CLOSED RAWHIDE | QA Contact: | David Lawrence <dkl> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | 7.1 | CC: | rvokal |
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | i386 | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2001-02-07 23:09:30 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: |
Description
Christian Rose
2001-02-07 18:09:38 UTC
It's not the name of the option; it's a description of what the option represents. Ok, I guess it was the quotes around it that confused me to belive it was option names. Well, then this is not a bug. Come to think of it, maybe "option" in these messages should be replaced by "parameter" then. These are really parameters, no? Examples: "cp -r foo" Here, "foo" is a parameter, and "-r" is an option. This is my picture of the nomenclature =) So if the "options" here are used as "parameters", maybe they should be renamed to reflect that. Reopening. Will be changed in 5.63-1. |