Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 464751
Feature: accept --no-foo style options
Last modified: 2009-01-21 15:35:23 EST
rpm has many negated long options such as --nosignature, --nodigest, --nodeps etc.
The commonly used style in many programs from GNU and elsewhere is to hyphenate these, as --no-signature, --no-digest, --no-deps and so on.
It would be a good idea for rpm to accept these forms as well as the ones without hyphen. (And ideally to use the --no-foo style in documentation and help messages, since it's a bit more readable, but this is a matter of opinion.)
If you really want this to happen, please submit a RFE to <firstname.lastname@example.org> to
handle bit set and/or clear based on a "no-" option prefix.
Feature request sent upstream: <http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.package-management.rpm.popt/1>.
Is the rpm5 popt library the upstream for Fedora, though?
That's the upstream popt for Fedora, yes.
But popt aside, going this way would just create huge compatibility rift wrt existing documentation including books in and out of print, and/or crazy amount of redundancy (rpm has way too many switches as it is).
WONTFIX from rpm POV.
A POPT_ARGFLAG_TOGGLE has been added, will be in popt-1.15 when released.
Too bad that rpm.org isn't going to use. Every additional option added to rpm
starts to diverge from doco. I fail to see how making all existing disablers in RPM
which are currently written in doco as
and (if POPT_ARGFLAG_TOGGLE is used) are now displayed as
with the additional benefit that
has the opposite effect causes a "crazy amount of redundancy."
And whether RPM has too many switches (it does) is irrelevant. Users
want "features" which forces additional options into RPM, usually rather unimportant
disablers like --noposttrans.
Thanks for the RFE.