On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Bruno Haible <br...@clisp.org> wrote: > Daiki Ueno wrote: >> > The consequence is that in packages that use GNU libtool, such programs >> > will >> > print "lt-prog" instead of "prog" in their usage message and other >> > messages. >> > This will disturb >> > * the hacker who uses the programs before doing "make install", >> > * the test suite. >> >> Sorry, I'm skeptical about this. Would it be useful to test the >> getprogname functionality from outside of test-getprogname.c? > > Here's what I mean: In the GNU gettext package, currently, after having built > it from source, I can do > > $ cd gettext-tools/src > $ ./xgettext --help | head -n 1 > Aufruf: ./xgettext [OPTION] [EINGABEDATEI]... > > When I do the replacements (below) to get rid of the use of the module > 'progname', > I get > > $ cd gettext-tools/src > $ ./xgettext --help | head -n 1 > Aufruf: lt-xgettext [OPTION] [EINGABEDATEI]... > > As you can see, > - The usage message now doesn't show the path of the executable, only its > basename. I view this as a regression, because power users often adjust > PATH and then occasionally by mistake invoke a program from an unintended > location. (This is reiterating my point 1) from > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2006-01/msg00122.html.) > - The basename now starts with "lt-". > > In summary, I like Pino's 'getprogname' module because it nicely solves the > problems he listed in > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2016-03/msg00048.html. > > But I disagree with the idea that the 'program_name' module and the > set_program_name() function should be deprecated, as expressed in > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2016-09/msg00007.html
Hi Bruno, I did not mean to imply by that message that we should eliminate every use of the program_name module. My desire is more to avoid accidental use of it when the getprogname module would be more appropriate.
