On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, Dick Davies wrote:

> My point was that I don't understand why you should mess with the base
> install - which affects everybody - for the sake of a package that not
> everybody uses?
> ...
> Then all affected users get warned without renaming a core app.

I was under the apprehension that this "core app" has never yet been
released, and so there are no users to affect. (Except, of course, those
who follow current, who are expected to deal with API changes.)

> If you want to avoid naming confliicts, I'd say it would have been saner
> to call spamassassin sa-spamd a la FreeBSD, and just stick something in
> mail/spamassassin/MESSAGE advising of the potential name conflict.

Well, there's an idea at last. (And yes, I very much want to avoid
naming conflicts.)

So let's see what users we affect either way:

     1. pfspamd option: Those who use PF on other systems.

     2. sa-spamd option: Those users who have installed our spamassassin
     package up to the time we change the name, and those who have used
     it on other systems.

I'd say that #2 is a rather larger user community than #1. And while
I'll buy the point about renaming things shipping with the base system
(which is why I'm much in favour of renaming the pkgsrc GNU Make binary
to "gmake"), this has never shipped with our base system, which to my
mind rather weakens that argument.

Anything I've missed?

cjs
-- 
Curt Sampson  <cjs@cynic.net>   +81 90 7737 2974   http://www.NetBSD.org
      Make up enjoying your city life...produced by BIC CAMERA