Re: iperf status

["Jonathan A. Kollasch" <jakllsch%kollasch.net@localhost>]

On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 11:59:01AM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
> 
> nia <nia%NetBSD.org@localhost> writes:
> 
> > On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 10:59:00AM -0500, Greg Troxel wrote:
> >> So that leads me to think that on the todo list should be:
> >> 
> >>   tweak iperf3 DESCR to say it's the standard approach
> >> 
> >>   change iperf DESCR to note that it is no longer maintained
> >> 
> >>   update net/iperf to the continuation fork in (3) above
> >
> > What about removing net/iperf and importing the fork as net/iperf2?
> >
> > I think if we are going to version things we should not have
> > the old version be the default.
> 
> Yes, good point.   I tend to not like churn and gradually slide into
> versioned, but as I see it iperf2 is now fringe and iperf3 mainstream,
> so the renaming pain is outweighed by the reduced confusion on normal
> users.
> 
> I'll do this at some point.

I agree that the iperf2 fork should be called iperf2, and the original
iperf can be removed.

I don't think we should rename iperf3 for the time being.  At least
Debian still calls their iperf3 package iperf3 and the executable the
upstream build installs is still called iperf3.