Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: renaming "rc" binary in OpenRC

[William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1494 bytes --]

On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 10:59:35AM -0500, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Alexander Berntsen
> <alexander@plaimi.net> wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA256
> >
> > On 11/12/13 21:41, William Hubbs wrote:
> >> My thought is to rename our "rc" to "openrc", since that would be
> >> unique.
> > orc is shorter and more punny (nice excuse for designing an orcish cow
> > mascot).
> >
> > On 11/12/13 22:04, William Hubbs wrote:> On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at
> > 10:47:49PM +0200, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> >>> are you going to rename also rc-service and rc-update?
> >>
> >> No, there isn't a need for that, just "rc".
> > Please rename all of them, to provide uniform naming. This way, typing
> > orc, and tab-tabing in BASH will give you a list of orc-related
> > executables, just like with rc now.
> >
> 
> That makes no sense; there is almost no reason to manually invoke the
> "rc" binary currently, an Gentoo users are already familiar with names
> like "rc-update" and "service".
 
 There are reasons to run the rc binary directly; this is how you should
 be changing runlevels.

> Renaming everything just forces users to learn new command names for no reason.

Right, there is no reason to rename everything.

In git, what I've done is rename rc to openrc and provide rc as a
backward compatibility symlink.

I agree with the comment earlier in the thread; debating the name is
just bikeshedding.

William


[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]