Marc wrote: > On Tue, Dec 03, 2024 at 08:41:06PM +0100, Étienne Mollier wrote: > > Marc Haber, on 2024-12-03: > > > I'll probably deprecate --allow-bad-names in favor of something that > > > doesn't use the word "bad" (suggestions appreciated). Otoh, adduser in > > > the Red Hat World uses --badname to allow such names as well. > > > > The problem is not the name, but the character set, so perhaps > > --allow-bad-characters will be better perceived. If you want to > > also avoid "bad", maybe try --allow-ambiguous-characters, or > > --allow-extended-character-set? The last one is perhaps a bit > > long winded, but also sounds more accurate than the rest. What > > do you think of these approaches? > > Extended sounds good, maybe even "unicode"? or "international"?
I prefer "bad". It gives the implicit message that it's bad to use that flag. If you find it offensive, then how about --allow-unsafe-names? I oppose "unicode", "extended", or "international", as all of them remove the connotation that you should not use that flag. Anyway, I vote for removing the possibility of using unsafe names, and not even exposing a flag. Have a lovely day! Alex -- <https://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
