Subject: Re: spamd (was Re: CVS commit: src/etc)
To: None <email@example.com>
From: YAMAMOTO Takashi <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 04/12/2005 07:11:44
> >> 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"?
> but are you _really_ arguing that it's _good_ practice to have two
> different binaries with the same name but completely different functions
> on the system?
no. i haven't said such a thing at all. i don't even understand why
you think so.
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.
i'd suggest you to bring up a discussion on the pf mailing list,
rather than here. (sorry if you had already)