-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

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 
(see below).

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?


>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:

  http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/openbsd/2003-02/1493.html

Perhaps you think this is a design style we would do well to emulate.  I 
do not.

- -- 
				Jim Wise
				jwise@draga.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (NetBSD)

iD8DBQFCWvlLpRpI6SYACmIRAtFUAKCI2aoYMedkjnwpvSAdfiwGKUJOhQCgxhSi
SxH9GUv14RtoRegDvAcQAW0=
=6v5I
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----