From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75C1913827E for ; Fri, 13 Dec 2013 15:59:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 86B6FE0A6B; Fri, 13 Dec 2013 15:59:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 94004E09B6 for ; Fri, 13 Dec 2013 15:59:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ie0-f182.google.com (mail-ie0-f182.google.com [209.85.223.182]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: floppym) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 884F633F082 for ; Fri, 13 Dec 2013 15:59:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ie0-f182.google.com with SMTP id as1so3069003iec.27 for ; Fri, 13 Dec 2013 07:59:35 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=Dy+1nOYYAcTLOa5vNREdk9l9cUE5fKOklnmjXXjYhgA=; b=gypZeMA8KTtGk+3jNDrCI9b0F/muKZ1rPBT/bE4mJAElBZ4Hk39ObvGY4sWSrLN81v eohzTJtkkgX4ESLtRTq7w83KNd8AoMmXZdHCe6MBqzlF7q8rQZzwaurLAkX1LriLXiPe 3gIccniLcSJGaK3q159iz1kZsMoFR3bpCJ1pCathNL5DkAjyAEmtOjG+y3s/2Loa73u3 zzg5UlCdS36esdUGgvWAGOljA2/JtwRYNrazCdRLaDa5FZm2iZA6WKFrekZf2eQ4O0wE tNCDrzTgB3Z8wb4nseChunzCFH9Dq/6ALhG6nAZ8nAB8QPNY2SK6t3xzdhpfH6wd7F2E ynBg== Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.43.52.129 with SMTP id vm1mr2561083icb.10.1386950375929; Fri, 13 Dec 2013 07:59:35 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.64.139.5 with HTTP; Fri, 13 Dec 2013 07:59:35 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <52A9DA57.6070700@plaimi.net> References: <20131211204110.GA30092@linux1> <52A9DA57.6070700@plaimi.net> Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 10:59:35 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: renaming "rc" binary in OpenRC From: Mike Gilbert To: Gentoo Dev Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Archives-Salt: eb799557-6eef-4e02-86dd-a1c7c19e8f28 X-Archives-Hash: 44af996ae91215c80326db2bf11bd232 On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Alexander Berntsen 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". Renaming everything just forces users to learn new command names for no reason.