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

[Hiroki Sato]

Alan Somers <asomers at freebsd.org> wrote
  in <CAOtMX2hLxx=SKvh1ZoiMAcagQJjPaRSvkML9J+BgpQsz5uNNbw at mail.gmail.com>:

as> On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 1:22 PM Hiroki Sato <hrs at allbsd.org> wrote:
as> >
as> > Hi,
as> >
as> > Alan Somers <asomers at FreeBSD.org> wrote
as> >   in <201908231522.x7NFMLuJ068037 at repo.freebsd.org>:
as> >
as> > as> Author: asomers
as> > as> Date: Fri Aug 23 15:22:20 2019
as> > as> New Revision: 351423
as> > as> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/351423
as> > as>
as> > as> Log:
as> > as>   ping6: Rename options for better consistency with ping
as> > as>
as> > as>   Now equivalent options have the same flags, and nonequivalent options have
as> > as>   different flags.  This is a prelude to merging the two commands.
as> > as>
as> > as>   Submitted by:     Ján Sučan <sucanjan at gmail.com>
as> > as>   MFC:              Never
as> > as>   Sponsored by:     Google LLC (Google Summer of Code 2019)
as> > as>   Differential Revision:    https://reviews.freebsd.org/D21345
as> >
as> >  I have an objection on renaming the existing option flags in ping6(8)
as> >  for compatibility with ping(8).
as> >
as> >  Is it sufficient to add INET6 support to ping(8) with consistent
as> >  flags and keep CLI of ping6(8) backward compatible?  People have used
as> >  ping6(8) for >15 years, so it is too late to rename the flags.  I do
as> >  not think the renaming is useful if "ping -6 localhost" or "ping ::1"
as> >  works.
as> >
as> > -- Hiroki
as> 
as> If ping works with inet6, then why would we want to keep a separate
as> tool around?  If it's just for the sake of people who don't want to or
as> can't update scripts, would a version in ports suffice?

 Because removing (or renaming) it causes a POLA violation.  Do we
 really have a strong, unavoidable reason to force people to rewrite
 their script now?  This is still a fairly essential and actively used
 tool, not like rcp or rlogin.  Although deprecating ping6(8) and
 removing it from the base system in the future release at some point
 may work, changing the existing interface will simply confuse people
 who have used IPv6 for a long time.

 In my understanding, the purpose to integrate ping(8) and ping6(8)
 into a single utility is to provide a consistent CLI and reduce
 duplicate code, not to break compatibility.

-- Hiroki
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 163 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/svn-src-all/attachments/20190826/7779ae74/attachment.sig>