Peter van der Reest <peter.van.der.re...@desy.de> 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 (r...@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-info mailing list OpenAFS-info@openafs.org https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
