In the Debian packaging for OpenAFS, I've renamed the "up" command to "afs-up" for years now. There's now also a conflict with the "backup" command (which is a horrible name for a command), and I'm rather tempted to do the same thing, but since it's a whole command suite with multiple documentation pages and cross-references, it's more of an undertaking.
What would people think if I submitted a patch to OpenAFS to rename up to afs-up and backup to afs-backup? Would that break a bunch of critical software? It would be really nice to fix AFS's camping on obvious namespace. Failing that, I'm probably going to split butc, backup, and fms into a separate package to make it easier for other packages to conflict with it due to the poorly-chosen command name instead of conflicting with all of openafs-client. -- Russ Allbery ([email protected]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-info mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
