Subject: Re: spamd (was Re: CVS commit: src/etc)
To: None <>
From: YAMAMOTO Takashi <>
List: tech-userlevel
Date: 04/12/2005 08:13:11
> >> >> 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 
> (see below).

ok, then, can you please consider to answer my questions?

> 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 
> disagree?

i agree.  i thought i said it in the previous mail.

i can understand why you want to rename it.
however, i don't think it's worth to do.

> >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.

i didn't say "conficts" in the sense of cvs.
eg. if both of spamd use /etc/spamd.conf, it's a conflict i meant.

talking about cvs, don't you know the fact that even simple changes
in a manpage involve boring, time consuming merging work?
besides, i don't think there're no changes needed to code.

> 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.

as i said in the previous mail, renaming yields another confusion.
eg. for people who uses pf spamd on another BSD as well.

> >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:

i didn't know it.  thanks for the pointer.