Bash commands to fetch "info version" included in an executable?

[PascalDragon]

Even -h for help is far from universal, so, maybe just  --help and --version needs to be added. 

No. As marcov said, FPC is cross platform and not a Unix utility, we don't let the OS dictate us how we should handle parameters. Cause then on Windows or DOS we'd need to accept e.g. /? as well as that is what most utilities there use.

I wonder if the FPC includes a -- parser ?

No, cause it doesn't have any parameters with -- to handle.

[marcov]

And besides being a (unenforced) convention, the results are often not really machine readable, so pretty useless for nearly anything generic other then displaying the result in some window

E.g. linux "ls" doesn't respond to either -v or -V only to --version, but it is a GNU beast. (as can be readily seen as there is more facts about the license than anything useful)

[MarkMLl]

No. As marcov said, FPC is cross platform and not a Unix utility, we don't let the OS dictate us how we should handle parameters. Cause then on Windows or DOS we'd need to accept e.g. /? as well as that is what most utilities there use.

And what's wrong with that? Minimal handling of --version and --help (hence potentially of /? etc.) is a convention that's now at least 30 years old, and in both cases results in rapid termination of the program after minimal output: it's not as though it has to mess up the main command-line parser.

A command with no parameters at all though is application-specific.

MarkMLl

[PascalDragon]

No. As marcov said, FPC is cross platform and not a Unix utility, we don't let the OS dictate us how we should handle parameters. Cause then on Windows or DOS we'd need to accept e.g. /? as well as that is what most utilities there use.

And what's wrong with that? Minimal handling of --version and --help (hence potentially of /? etc.) is a convention that's now at least 30 years old, and in both cases results in rapid termination of the program after minimal output: it's not as though it has to mess up the main command-line parser.

As marcov said, not even ls adheres to that. So again, no we will not adjust that.

[MarkMLl]

As marcov said, not even ls adheres to that. So again, no we will not adjust that.

ls implements the conventional --version and --help options- or at least it does on the Debian systems I run. As I've already said, -v and -V have ALWAYS HAD at least as much claim to be interpreted as "verbose" as "version", and the habit of putting major.minor.fixes version numbers on just about everything didn't really take off until people noticed Linux's use of the convention.

And I don't for one moment expect you to change anything, and didn't say I did. That doesn't stop me from pointing out that FPC departs from a well-accepted convention.

MarkMLl

[PascalDragon]

And I don't for one moment expect you to change anything, and didn't say I did. That doesn't stop me from pointing out that FPC departs from a well-accepted convention.

It's a convention, not a requirement.

[marcov]

As marcov said, not even ls adheres to that. So again, no we will not adjust that.

ls implements the conventional --version and --help options-

Afaik the long versions are not Unix but GNU specific. And as said  ls commonly used on Linux is a GNU product.

[MarkMLl]

As marcov said, not even ls adheres to that. So again, no we will not adjust that.

ls implements the conventional --version and --help options-

Afaik the long versions are not Unix but GNU specific. And as said  ls commonly used on Linux is a GNU product.

Correct. And as I've said- repeatedly I believe- it's a 30-year-old GNU convention found not only in Linux distreaux but also anywhere else the GNU utilities are available e.g. SunOS/Solaris.

I for one have certainly not suggested that FPC should abandon its existing options, and neither have I suggested that it should adopt -v for "version"... that would be an utterly barmy idea since as I have (repeatedly) pointed out -v has as much of a history of being used to indicate "verbose" as it has of indicating a request for version information.

But not having minimal handling of the --version and --help commands, even if the response was the same message saying how the user should be requesting more info, is ludicrous.

MarkMLl

[PascalDragon]

But not having minimal handling of the --version and --help commands, even if the response was the same message saying how the user should be requesting more info, is ludicrous.

Your opinion, but not that of us FPC devs.

[MarkMLl]

Your opinion, but not that of us FPC devs.

I know.

MarkMLl

[marcov]

Correct. And as I've said- repeatedly I believe- it's a 30-year-old GNU convention found not only in Linux distreaux but also anywhere else the GNU utilities are available e.g. SunOS/Solaris.

We don't have a commandline handler that does long options, and while it is theoretical possible to add it, the point is still why it is so important to warrant that, I haven't heard much more  than obtaining some hypothetical bullet point with Unix-in-principle-only software (which we are not) and an already debunked option for machine query of version info.

[MarkMLl]

We don't have a commandline handler that does long options, and while it is theoretical possible to add it, the point is still why it is so important to warrant that, I haven't heard much more  than obtaining some hypothetical bullet point with Unix-in-principle-only software (which we are not) and an already debunked option for machine query of version info.

I don't think that my shooting my mouth off about this any further is going to be particularly constructive.

I will, however round off by pointing out that FPC- which (AIUI) was for a long time oriented towards unix- happily adopts the unix convention of a single leading dash indicating an option as distinct from (for example) a Windows-style / or the rarely-seen convention of using +- for turning options on or off.

My sole point is that most software- and this includes Lazarus- in the modern GNU-dominated environment responds intelligently to --version and --help. I am emphatically NOT suggesting that FPC should go out of its way to display "live" version and help information in response to those, merely that it should recognise the longstanding convention and react with a hint as to what options should be used to get introductory information.

And that really is my last word on the matter.

MarkMLl

[marcov]

FPC's origins are dos, not Unix.  Using variable switchchar was something that wasn't generally followed any more in those times, only Microsoft still did it afaik.

But it could be that it was a GNU binutils influence.

[lucamar]

[...] the point is still why it is so important to warrant that, I haven't heard much more  than obtaining some hypothetical bullet point with Unix-in-principle-only software (which we are not) and an already debunked option for machine query of version info.

It's not important but it would be convenient, even if just for that portion of users that work mostly on *nix-like systems. When one is used to write: somecommand --help to get a quick view of supported options, having the command barf back with just:

Code: [Select]

Error: Illegal parameter: --help
Error: /usr/bin/ppcx64 returned an error exitcodeis a little disconcerting, until you remember it's just -? or -h

But if it's so difficult to add it then we'll shrug it away; there are certainly much more important issues to deal with. Though the message might be a little more helpful, like say adding: "Use -? or -h to see valid options"