Subject: Re: spamd (was Re: CVS commit: src/etc)
To: YAMAMOTO Takashi <email@example.com>
From: Jim Wise <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 04/11/2005 18:25:11
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
>> >> I have a real problem with it -- it should not be $PATH-dependent
>> >> whether typing `spamd' starts the daemon which could be necessary to
>> >> mail delivery or some other barely-spam-related daemon.
>> >well, does your PATH include /usr/libexec?
>> >is it a common usage?
>> Look, I know you're interested in winning the argument at this point,
>no. you're misunderstanding.
>i just wanted to know what's a problem.
>can i assume your answer is "no and no"?
No, you can assume what I said -- that I (and several others who have
piped up in this argument) have a very real problem with NetBSD adopting
sloppy coding practices from other systems in the name of `reducing
conflicts' -- particularly when those conflicts don't actually exist
It is a _really_ bad idea for us to call a new program `spamd'. We
should not do it. Pretty much everyone agrees on this point. Do you
>if you write up a new program, it's better to give it a likely-unique name,
>of course. i completely agree at that point.
>however, what we're talking about is a little different; we're talking about
>two exisiting programs which have the same name.
>renaming one of them in our tree just yields another confusion.
>assuming there's no real conflicts,
>it isn't worth to increase the maintainance cost significantly for it, IMO.
First off, it doesn't have _anything_ to do with conflicts at import
time, and it doesn't add maintenance cost at all. There is a _single_
line in src/usr.bin/pf/spamd which sets the name of the installed
program, and a two line change to the same which can change the name of
the corresponding man page. There is _no_ change needed to code
imported under src/dist/pf. So this is a strawman, plain and simple.
Secondly, even if there were a small maintenance cost involved, I don't
agree with this style of thinking -- this is just taking a small
maintenance cost on our part and pushing it off onto a large maintenance
cost for our users. I know that some other projects (including the one
pf's `spamd' came from) often do just this, but we have a long proud
history of not doing so.
>i'd suggest you to bring up a discussion on the pf mailing list,
>rather than here. (sorry if you had already)
Why would I do that? Theo has already stated, in his usual style, that
he is not interested in trouble users may have on account of the name:
Perhaps you think this is a design style we would do well to emulate. I
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (NetBSD)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----