Re: [Cooker] Re: Rename wipe command to lamwipe?

[Ben Reser]

On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 01:24:31PM +0800, Leon Brooks wrote:
 On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 11:11, Ben Reser wrote:
  3.  Rename wipe in lam-runtime to lamwipe.
 
 If that follows the trend for postfix, cups etc it would be wipe.lam 
 instead. I would use lamwipe (or the name of the lam crew's choice) and 
 make wipe.lam a link to it, then link alternatives to wipe.lam.

I didn't figure I needed to bother with wipe.lam if I was going to have
lamwipe and they were going to change names to that.  I'd rather avoid
creating another name that we have to carry around because people might
have scripts pointing to it.

  Rename the wipe command wipe.wipe.
 
 Is there nothing more descriptive?

Well I'm not sure wipe.del?  wipe.securedel?  But again that isn't
consistent at all with the existing naming.  *shrug*

-- 
Ben Reser [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://ben.reser.org

What upsets me is not that you lied to me, but that from now on I can
no longer believe you. -- Nietzsche

Re: [Cooker] Re: Rename wipe command to lamwipe?

[Leon Brooks]

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 11:11, Ben Reser wrote:
 3.  Rename wipe in lam-runtime to lamwipe.

If that follows the trend for postfix, cups etc it would be wipe.lam 
instead. I would use lamwipe (or the name of the lam crew's choice) and 
make wipe.lam a link to it, then link alternatives to wipe.lam.

 Rename the wipe command wipe.wipe.

Is there nothing more descriptive?

 Setting lam-runtime's wipe at a higher priority so in the
 case where both packages were installed lame-runtime would own the
 wipe command.  This would avoid your concerns with lam users getting
 the secure file deletetion tool on accident.

Seconded.

Cheers; Leon