Unify the syntax used by various qvm-tools...

[marmarek]

Reported by joanna on 29 Mar 2012 18:48 UTC
...specifically the place where the DstVM argument is given. Some tools (e.g. qvm-copy-to-vm) take the DstVM as the first argument ("Intel syntax"), while others (e.g. qvm-block -a) take it as last argument ("AT&T syntax"). Other tools to consider: qvm-pci (currently Intel syntax), qvm-clone ("AT&T syntax"), and probably a few others I've missed.

Migrated-From: https://wiki.qubes-os.org/ticket/514

[marmarek]

Comment by marmarek on 31 Mar 2012 17:03 UTC
qvm-clone is just like cp - IMHO now it is good order.

[marmarek]

Comment by marmarek on 31 Mar 2012 17:03 UTC
qvm-clone is just like cp - IMHO now it is good order.

[marmarek]

Comment by aga on 11 Apr 2012 08:21 UTC
And remember to update the docs.

[marmarek]

Comment by aga on 11 Apr 2012 08:21 UTC
And remember to update the docs.

[marmarek]

Comment by joanna on 12 Apr 2012 10:14 UTC
http://git.qubes-os.org/?p=marmarek/core.git;a=commit;h=e5a2209cab096e4b5877c5f73f87bd357486b199

So, generally we agreed that the "Intel syntax" is better, and now all tools seem to follow. With the exception of qvm-clone, which uses the "AT&T syntax", as it is really more intuitive in this case.

[marmarek]

Comment by joanna on 12 Apr 2012 10:14 UTC
http://git.qubes-os.org/?p=marmarek/core.git;a=commit;h=e5a2209cab096e4b5877c5f73f87bd357486b199

So, generally we agreed that the "Intel syntax" is better, and now all tools seem to follow. With the exception of qvm-clone, which uses the "AT&T syntax", as it is really more intuitive in this case.