Re: [RFC] *-rc.d -> rc.d-* transition
Chris Waters wrote:
> I think there is one argument against the proposal which has been
> completely overlooked: update-rc.d is consistent with other similar
> debian utilities like update-menus and update-alternatives. This is
> not a strong argument, but I don't see any strong arguments on either
> side.
I concur, but would like to promote the above argument to a strong
argument in favour of keeping the {/sbin,/usr/sbin}/update-*
consistency.
=====
$ ls -1 /sbin/update-* /usr/sbin/update-*
/sbin/update-grub
/sbin/update-modules
/usr/sbin/update-alternatives
/usr/sbin/update-catalog
/usr/sbin/update-fmtutil
/usr/sbin/update-fonts-alias
/usr/sbin/update-fonts-dir
/usr/sbin/update-fonts-scale
/usr/sbin/update-gtk-immodules
/usr/sbin/update-inetd
/usr/sbin/update-ispell-dictionary
/usr/sbin/update-mime
/usr/sbin/update-mozilla-chrome
/usr/sbin/update-ms-fonts
/usr/sbin/update-pango-modules
/usr/sbin/update-pangox-aliases
/usr/sbin/update-passwd
/usr/sbin/update-rc.d
/usr/sbin/update-texmf
/usr/sbin/update-usb.usermap
/usr/sbin/update-vfontcap
/usr/sbin/update-xpdfrc
$ ls -1 /sbin/*-update /usr/sbin/*-update
ls: /sbin/*-update: No such file or directory
ls: /usr/sbin/*-update: No such file or directory
=====
The {/sbin,/usr/sbin}/update-* convention is widely used and so
consistently applied as to be easy to remember. As an admin, if I want
to find the Debian tool to update some configuration information,
there's an overwhelming chance it's named using this convention.
This argument seems stronger than any argument so far in favour of
/usr/sbin/rc.d-update and friends.
> [Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:]
> > 5. there is no real reason not to do the change in the first place,
> > users are NOT supposed to be using rc.d-update directly anyway
>
> The same could be said of update-mime, update-fonts-alias, etc. But
> it's not true. There are two reasons. Neither are strong reasons,
> but then i haven't seen any strong reasons to make the change.
It's certainly not true that "users are not supposed to be using (the
update tools) directly". The convenience of these tools makes them an
ideal solution for problems like "How do I change the default
configuration of foo?", and in my experience /usr/sbin/update-rc.d is a
prime example of a tool well-matched for a common problem.
Thus the "users are not supposed to be using them directly" is at best
open to debate. They *are* used directly, and I don't see any reason
why they should not be. Thus, they are a convenient tool, and their
current consistent naming makes them easy to use.
The above argument may not meet Chris's criteria for "strong", but I
believe it's stronger than any of the arguments presented in favour of
changing the name of these tools -- most of which were rightly
classified by Chris as "weak".
--
\ "Smoking cures weight problems. Eventually." -- Steven Wright |
`\ |
_o__) |
bignose@zip.com.au F'print 9CFE12B0 791A4267 887F520C B7AC2E51 BD41714B
Reply to: