> I agree that the iperf2 fork should be called iperf2, and the original > iperf can be removed. I just did that. I even ran iperf2 and it works. > 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. I never had any intention of renaming iperf3, both for the reasons you point out, and because of are "exactly one version in pkgsrc which is unvesioned, or multiple versions which *all* have versioned names" notion. Now we have iperf2 and iperf3 and I think things are good, modulo issues with iperf2 upstream (lack of clarity on releases, two standards-commpliance bugs, now filed upstream, and perhaps some bool strangeness).
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature