1 |
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 10:59:35AM -0500, Mike Gilbert wrote: |
2 |
> On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Alexander Berntsen |
3 |
> <alexander@××××××.net> wrote: |
4 |
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
5 |
> > Hash: SHA256 |
6 |
> > |
7 |
> > On 11/12/13 21:41, William Hubbs wrote: |
8 |
> >> My thought is to rename our "rc" to "openrc", since that would be |
9 |
> >> unique. |
10 |
> > orc is shorter and more punny (nice excuse for designing an orcish cow |
11 |
> > mascot). |
12 |
> > |
13 |
> > On 11/12/13 22:04, William Hubbs wrote:> On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at |
14 |
> > 10:47:49PM +0200, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: |
15 |
> >>> are you going to rename also rc-service and rc-update? |
16 |
> >> |
17 |
> >> No, there isn't a need for that, just "rc". |
18 |
> > Please rename all of them, to provide uniform naming. This way, typing |
19 |
> > orc, and tab-tabing in BASH will give you a list of orc-related |
20 |
> > executables, just like with rc now. |
21 |
> > |
22 |
> |
23 |
> That makes no sense; there is almost no reason to manually invoke the |
24 |
> "rc" binary currently, an Gentoo users are already familiar with names |
25 |
> like "rc-update" and "service". |
26 |
|
27 |
There are reasons to run the rc binary directly; this is how you should |
28 |
be changing runlevels. |
29 |
|
30 |
> Renaming everything just forces users to learn new command names for no reason. |
31 |
|
32 |
Right, there is no reason to rename everything. |
33 |
|
34 |
In git, what I've done is rename rc to openrc and provide rc as a |
35 |
backward compatibility symlink. |
36 |
|
37 |
I agree with the comment earlier in the thread; debating the name is |
38 |
just bikeshedding. |
39 |
|
40 |
William |