Jan (please keep him CCed on replies) has been musing about the same thing. That might satisfy everyone. Jan, would it be straightforward to implement? -Alan
On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 5:51 PM Conrad Meyer <c...@freebsd.org> wrote: > > Hi Alan, Hiroki, > > It would be pretty easy to install a `ping6` link to the `ping(8)` > binary with different option parsing (conditional on argv[0]). That > removes most of the issues of code and space duplication, I think? > And the goal would be for the 'ping6' name to retain option > compatibility with historical ping6. > > It's not an uncommon pattern; for example, 'id', 'groups', and > 'whoami' are all a single binary with multiple linked names. Another > example is Clang, which provides 'cc', 'c++', 'clang', 'clang-cpp', > 'clang++' and 'cpp' links to the same inode — and those have very > different behavior depending on argv[0]. > > It's less work than forcing the ping6 compatibility crowd to create a > port and doesn't hurt ping(8) much, AFAICT. Is it an acceptable > middle ground? > > Best, > Conrad > > On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 1:26 PM alan somers <asom...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Sun, Aug 25, 2019, 2:11 PM Hiroki Sato <h...@allbsd.org> wrote: > >> > >> Alan Somers <asom...@freebsd.org> wrote > >> in <CAOtMX2hLxx=skvh1zoimacagqjjparsvkml9j+bgpqsz5un...@mail.gmail.com>: > >> > >> as> On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 1:22 PM Hiroki Sato <h...@allbsd.org> wrote: > >> as> > > >> as> > Hi, > >> as> > > >> as> > Alan Somers <asom...@freebsd.org> wrote > >> as> > in <201908231522.x7nfmluj068...@repo.freebsd.org>: > >> as> > > >> as> > as> Author: asomers > >> as> > as> Date: Fri Aug 23 15:22:20 2019 > >> as> > as> New Revision: 351423 > >> as> > as> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/351423 > >> as> > as> > >> as> > as> Log: > >> as> > as> ping6: Rename options for better consistency with ping > >> as> > as> > >> as> > as> Now equivalent options have the same flags, and nonequivalent > >> options have > >> as> > as> different flags. This is a prelude to merging the two > >> commands. > >> as> > as> > >> as> > as> Submitted by: Ján Sučan <sucan...@gmail.com> > >> as> > as> MFC: Never > >> as> > as> Sponsored by: Google LLC (Google Summer of Code 2019) > >> as> > as> Differential Revision: https://reviews.freebsd.org/D21345 > >> as> > > >> as> > I have an objection on renaming the existing option flags in > >> ping6(8) > >> as> > for compatibility with ping(8). > >> as> > > >> as> > Is it sufficient to add INET6 support to ping(8) with consistent > >> as> > flags and keep CLI of ping6(8) backward compatible? People have > >> used > >> as> > ping6(8) for >15 years, so it is too late to rename the flags. I do > >> as> > not think the renaming is useful if "ping -6 localhost" or "ping > >> ::1" > >> as> > works. > >> as> > > >> as> > -- Hiroki > >> as> > >> as> If ping works with inet6, then why would we want to keep a separate > >> as> tool around? If it's just for the sake of people who don't want to or > >> as> can't update scripts, would a version in ports suffice? > >> > >> Because removing (or renaming) it causes a POLA violation. Do we > >> really have a strong, unavoidable reason to force people to rewrite > >> their script now? This is still a fairly essential and actively used > >> tool, not like rcp or rlogin. Although deprecating ping6(8) and > >> removing it from the base system in the future release at some point > >> may work, changing the existing interface will simply confuse people > >> who have used IPv6 for a long time. > >> > >> In my understanding, the purpose to integrate ping(8) and ping6(8) > >> into a single utility is to provide a consistent CLI and reduce > >> duplicate code, not to break compatibility. > >> > >> -- Hiroki > > > > > > Those goals are incompatible. We can't provide a consistent CLI without > > breaking compatibility because ping and ping6 have conflicting options. > > And we can't keep ping6 around while also removing duplicate code because > > that would be, well, duplicate code. > > > > When would be a better time than a major version bump to make a change like > > this? > > > > The lack of a ping6 command in freebsd 13 should serve as a pretty obvious > > reminder that scripts will need updating. I think that putting a version > > of ping6 in ports should be a sufficient crutch for those who need it, > > don't you? _______________________________________________ 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"
