On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 1:22 PM Hiroki Sato <h...@allbsd.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > Alan Somers <asom...@freebsd.org> wrote > in <201908231522.x7nfmluj068...@repo.freebsd.org>: > > as> Author: asomers > as> Date: Fri Aug 23 15:22:20 2019 > as> New Revision: 351423 > as> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/351423 > as> > as> Log: > as> ping6: Rename options for better consistency with ping > as> > as> Now equivalent options have the same flags, and nonequivalent options > have > as> different flags. This is a prelude to merging the two commands. > as> > as> Submitted by: Ján Sučan <sucan...@gmail.com> > as> MFC: Never > as> Sponsored by: Google LLC (Google Summer of Code 2019) > as> Differential Revision: https://reviews.freebsd.org/D21345 > > I have an objection on renaming the existing option flags in ping6(8) > for compatibility with ping(8). > > Is it sufficient to add INET6 support to ping(8) with consistent > flags and keep CLI of ping6(8) backward compatible? People have used > ping6(8) for >15 years, so it is too late to rename the flags. I do > not think the renaming is useful if "ping -6 localhost" or "ping ::1" > works. > > -- Hiroki
If ping works with inet6, then why would we want to keep a separate tool around? If it's just for the sake of people who don't want to or can't update scripts, would a version in ports suffice? -Alan _______________________________________________ svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
