From Bugzilla Helper: User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; cs-CZ; rv:1.8.1.13) Gecko/20080325 Fedora/2.0.0.13-1.fc8 Firefox/2.0.0.13 Description of problem: The usage message of rhsalinfo_decode2-0.5 utility claims that parameters "-f" and "--forgiving" are equivalent, but the utility doesn't know the parameter "-f". Parameter "--forgiving" is recognized which is correct. Following line is cut out of the usage message: -f --forgiving be forgiving of errors when opening files and reading data Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): salinfo-0.5-1.13 How reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. /usr/sbin/rhsalinfo_decode2-0.5 -f Actual Results: /usr/sbin/rhsalinfo_decode2-0.5: invalid option -- f salinfo_decode2 Version0.5-11chaos Copyright 2004 Red Hat Inc. This is free software with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY. usage: salinfo_decode2 [options] [database...] -h --help print this usage and exit -V --version print version information and exit -c --cmc only print cmc records -p --cpe only print cpe records -m --mca only print mca records -i --init only print init records -d --dimm-offset count dimms starting at 1 not 0. -o --cpu-offset count cpus starting at 1 not 0. --tiger4 the same as -d & -o -f --forgiving be forgiving of errors when opening files and reading data -r --recursive when a database is a directory traverse its subdirs -v --verbosity specify the verbosity to print records. Verbosity can be 1-6 -s --scriptable output in a machine readable format [database] defaults to stdin if not specified A database can either be a file containing one of many salinfo records or a directory containing files with salinfo records Expected Results: No message "invalid option". Additional info:
Created attachment 302743 [details] RHEL4 fix for this issue
This request was evaluated by Red Hat Product Management for inclusion, but this component is not scheduled to be updated in the current Red Hat Enterprise Linux release. If you would like this request to be reviewed for the next minor release, ask your support representative to set the next rhel-x.y flag to "?".
With RHEL4.8 as the next release and this being a low priority issue, I'm closing this as WONTFIX. P.