Tue, 05 Jul 2011 16:01:02 -0700
Peter van der Reest <email@example.com> writes:
> would this be a name change for /usr/sbin/backup only, or would
> /usr/afs/bin/backup also be affected by this proposed name change?
I think we should change the name of the binary across the board, but
install a symlink under the old name for the time being for backward
compatibility. We could drop the symlink at some reasonable point in the
future (like the 2.0 release, maybe), and packagers for particular OSes
where there's a conflict can drop the compatibility symlink and warn in
their packaging notes and messaging about it.
> PS: I personally do not see the need for a name change on our part, CODA
> could have a codabackup?
Regardless of what other software can do, we should be good citizens and
not unreasonably squat on generic namespace. The OpenAFS backup command
is in no respect a generic backup utility, and shouldn't be claiming to be
so in its name. (It's a similar, although more severe, problem as the
"up" command.) The names of some of these commands were picked in a
different era where there weren't 100,000 different software packages that
people may want to pick from and co-install on the same box.
Russ Allbery (firstname.lastname@example.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>