Alan Somers <asom...@freebsd.org> wrote in <CAOtMX2hLxx=skvh1zoimacagqjjparsvkml9j+bgpqsz5un...@mail.gmail.com>:
as> On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 1:22 PM Hiroki Sato <h...@allbsd.org> wrote: as> > as> > Hi, as> > as> > Alan Somers <asom...@freebsd.org> wrote as> > in <201908231522.x7nfmluj068...@repo.freebsd.org>: as> > as> > as> Author: asomers as> > as> Date: Fri Aug 23 15:22:20 2019 as> > as> New Revision: 351423 as> > as> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/351423 as> > as> as> > as> Log: as> > as> ping6: Rename options for better consistency with ping as> > as> as> > as> Now equivalent options have the same flags, and nonequivalent options have as> > as> different flags. This is a prelude to merging the two commands. as> > as> as> > as> Submitted by: Ján Sučan <sucan...@gmail.com> as> > as> MFC: Never as> > as> Sponsored by: Google LLC (Google Summer of Code 2019) as> > as> Differential Revision: https://reviews.freebsd.org/D21345 as> > as> > I have an objection on renaming the existing option flags in ping6(8) as> > for compatibility with ping(8). as> > as> > Is it sufficient to add INET6 support to ping(8) with consistent as> > flags and keep CLI of ping6(8) backward compatible? People have used as> > ping6(8) for >15 years, so it is too late to rename the flags. I do as> > not think the renaming is useful if "ping -6 localhost" or "ping ::1" as> > works. as> > as> > -- Hiroki as> as> If ping works with inet6, then why would we want to keep a separate as> tool around? If it's just for the sake of people who don't want to or as> can't update scripts, would a version in ports suffice? Because removing (or renaming) it causes a POLA violation. Do we really have a strong, unavoidable reason to force people to rewrite their script now? This is still a fairly essential and actively used tool, not like rcp or rlogin. Although deprecating ping6(8) and removing it from the base system in the future release at some point may work, changing the existing interface will simply confuse people who have used IPv6 for a long time. In my understanding, the purpose to integrate ping(8) and ping6(8) into a single utility is to provide a consistent CLI and reduce duplicate code, not to break compatibility. -- Hiroki
pgpZG78JkgiJT.pgp
Description: PGP signature
