svn commit: r351423 - in head: . sbin/ping6 sbin/ping6/tests

[Alan Somers]

On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 1:22 PM Hiroki Sato <hrs at allbsd.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Alan Somers <asomers at FreeBSD.org> wrote
>   in <201908231522.x7NFMLuJ068037 at repo.freebsd.org>:
>
> as> Author: asomers
> as> Date: Fri Aug 23 15:22:20 2019
> as> New Revision: 351423
> as> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/351423
> as>
> as> Log:
> as>   ping6: Rename options for better consistency with ping
> as>
> as>   Now equivalent options have the same flags, and nonequivalent options have
> as>   different flags.  This is a prelude to merging the two commands.
> as>
> as>   Submitted by:     Ján Sučan <sucanjan at gmail.com>
> as>   MFC:              Never
> as>   Sponsored by:     Google LLC (Google Summer of Code 2019)
> as>   Differential Revision:    https://reviews.freebsd.org/D21345
>
>  I have an objection on renaming the existing option flags in ping6(8)
>  for compatibility with ping(8).
>
>  Is it sufficient to add INET6 support to ping(8) with consistent
>  flags and keep CLI of ping6(8) backward compatible?  People have used
>  ping6(8) for >15 years, so it is too late to rename the flags.  I do
>  not think the renaming is useful if "ping -6 localhost" or "ping ::1"
>  works.
>
> -- Hiroki

If ping works with inet6, then why would we want to keep a separate
tool around?  If it's just for the sake of people who don't want to or
can't update scripts, would a version in ports suffice?
-Alan