Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: William Hubbs <williamh@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: renaming "rc" binary in OpenRC
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 17:23:18
Message-Id: 20131213172307.GA6734@linux1
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: renaming "rc" binary in OpenRC by Mike Gilbert
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

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies

Subject Author
[gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: renaming "rc" binary in OpenRC Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net>