Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2019 16:50:53 -0700 From: Conrad Meyer <cem@freebsd.org> To: alan somers <asomers@gmail.com> Cc: Hiroki Sato <hrs@allbsd.org>, src-committers <src-committers@freebsd.org>, svn-src-all <svn-src-all@freebsd.org>, svn-src-head <svn-src-head@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r351423 - in head: . sbin/ping6 sbin/ping6/tests Message-ID: <CAG6CVpUULfa9KYWWRLwDxVS6UJ-s3GRGAcjXPo4a5yJjYRG_7w@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAOtMX2jhmV%2BqRH%2BU1jMzdXsnckAvkzJhQiU6H65jUjdpK%2BXU3Q@mail.gmail.com> References: <201908231522.x7NFMLuJ068037@repo.freebsd.org> <20190826.042056.1329861772202588895.hrs@allbsd.org> <CAOtMX2hLxx=SKvh1ZoiMAcagQJjPaRSvkML9J%2BBgpQsz5uNNbw@mail.gmail.com> <20190826.050922.1810654532466043358.hrs@allbsd.org> <CAOtMX2jhmV%2BqRH%2BU1jMzdXsnckAvkzJhQiU6H65jUjdpK%2BXU3Q@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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 =E2=80=94 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 <asomers@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 25, 2019, 2:11 PM Hiroki Sato <hrs@allbsd.org> wrote: >> >> Alan Somers <asomers@freebsd.org> wrote >> in <CAOtMX2hLxx=3DSKvh1ZoiMAcagQJjPaRSvkML9J+BgpQsz5uNNbw@mail.gmail.c= om>: >> >> as> On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 1:22 PM Hiroki Sato <hrs@allbsd.org> wrote: >> as> > >> as> > Hi, >> as> > >> as> > Alan Somers <asomers@FreeBSD.org> wrote >> as> > in <201908231522.x7NFMLuJ068037@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 nonequivalen= t options have >> as> > as> different flags. This is a prelude to merging the two comma= nds. >> as> > as> >> as> > as> Submitted by: J=C3=A1n Su=C4=8Dan <sucanjan@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 ping= 6(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 b= reaking 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 li= ke this? > > The lack of a ping6 command in freebsd 13 should serve as a pretty obviou= s 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?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAG6CVpUULfa9KYWWRLwDxVS6UJ-s3GRGAcjXPo4a5yJjYRG_7w>