On 25 Aug 2019, at 20:26, alan somers 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?
No. I have systems without ping as I have systems without any INET
support.
We do use ping(though not ping6 yet imho) in startup scripts so we
consider it essential to the base system.
If you migrate ping6 into ping the first thing I’ll want to be able is
to compile one or the other address family out and that’ll basically
give me the same we have today + a name change I have to deal with
unless argv[0] tricks and a hardlink are done. (Hint: if you make the
compile out happen, deal with the fact that ping and ping6 can be there
without the hardlink to the other — a bit of Makefile glue — and
migrate it all in based on argv[0], I think I can be happy).
In other notes (and I keep saying that), I can see a world when ping
doesn’t exist anymore as IPv4 doesn’t exist anymore (I partially
already live in that world). The fact that people still do not prepare
themselves for this time is a bit strange to me as by the time FreeBSD
14 is still in support this IPv6-only world might very well happen for a
majority of people. And FreeBSD 14-CURRENT really is only a year away
now. So breaking what’s been good for almost 20 years now for a few
more years doesn’t really seem to be worth to me.
Just my 2cts,
Bjoern
_______________________________________________
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"
