Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2019 06:28:52 +0200 From: Jan Sucan <sucanjan@gmail.com> To: Alan Somers <asomers@freebsd.org>, "Conrad E. Meyer" <cem@freebsd.org> 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: <379c3378-f9dd-4d6b-35ca-fa1ac7e6386b@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAOtMX2hjaYq%2B8_S0yXeAJutF2gNy3wgivmvOd=OV-iTByUdYKA@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> <CAG6CVpUULfa9KYWWRLwDxVS6UJ-s3GRGAcjXPo4a5yJjYRG_7w@mail.gmail.com> <CAOtMX2hjaYq%2B8_S0yXeAJutF2gNy3wgivmvOd=OV-iTByUdYKA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hello, I can implement it. I suppose that ping6's manual page should be kept it this case. I was also thinking about printing a warning for each option renamed to lead a willing user to use the new unified option set of ping. It could be either only with -v, or by default and suppressed with -q. Or should the option translation be completely transparent? -Jan On 26. 8. 2019 1:58, Alan Somers wrote: > 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 <cem@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 <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=SKvh1ZoiMAcagQJjPaRSvkML9J+BgpQsz5uNNbw@mail.gmail.com>: >>>> >>>> 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 nonequivalent options have >>>> as> > as> different flags. This is a prelude to merging the two commands. >>>> as> > as> >>>> as> > as> Submitted by: Ján Sučan <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 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?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?379c3378-f9dd-4d6b-35ca-fa1ac7e6386b>