[ZCM] [ZC] 1312/ 9 Comment "proposal for util renaming"

[Collector: Zope Bugs, Features, and Patches ...]

Issue #1312 Update (Comment) "proposal for util renaming"
 Status Pending, Zope/feature medium
To followup, visit:
  http://zope.org/Collectors/Zope/1312

==============================================================
= Comment - Entry #9 by mcdonc on Jun 1, 2004 3:02 pm

I'm wondering why you would want to put the fs* commands in /usr/bin?  Why not just carve out a namespace somewhere else in the directory tree and put them there?  Does this violate the LFS somehow?  I agree that conceptually it's a nice idea to have all commands in a single directory, but as far as I can tell you could probably get away with putting only these commands in /usr/bin (and maybe even a subset of these):

 repozo.py
 zeopack.py
 runzeo.py
 zeopasswd.py
 mkzeoinst.py
 zeoctl.py

________________________________________
= Comment - Entry #8 by tim_one on Jun 1, 2004 2:37 pm

Sorry, this won't happen for 3.3b1.  That's scheduled for release tomorrow, and I'm overloaded already trying to get that done.  This one needs more feedback from the community first.  For example, how many admin scripts are out there using the current names?  Are people happy to change them, or will they complain?  Etc.  It's generally a dangerous thing to change names this late in a release cycle.  3.4 is a different story.
________________________________________
= Comment - Entry #7 by tim_one on Jun 1, 2004 2:32 pm


Uploaded:  "posix_script_extension.patch"
 - http://zope.org/Collectors/Zope/1312/posix_script_extension.patch/view
Attaching John's patch.
________________________________________
= Comment - Entry #6 by stevea on May 31, 2004 11:33 am

I have spoken to James Troup, who rejected the debian package.  The main problem is the use of "fs" as an abbreviation for "FileStorage" in the ZODB executables.

"fs" is just too generic, and too likely to collide with other "filesystem" tools.  I propose changing the "fs" to "zfs" in the names of the executables.
________________________________________
= Comment - Entry #5 by jbelmonte on May 31, 2004 8:41 am

A clarification: I'm having trouble getting zodb accepted into Debian because of the /usr/bin/ namespace pollution, not the .py extensions.  However, such extensions on scripts are discouraged.

Attached is a patch to remove the .py extensions under POSIX.  What do you think? [Help: I can't attach a file to this issue!]

Regardless of .py extensions, I'd like to see the commands renamed before 3.3 beta.  Shall I work on a patch?

________________________________________
= Comment - Entry #4 by tim_one on May 29, 2004 9:56 pm

zconfig should have a .py extension on Windows -- all Python code should.  The reason it doesn't is that Fred (zconfig's author) isn't a Windows programmer, and so is prone to making life needlessly difficult for Windows users.  He's not alone in this, of course.
________________________________________
= Comment - Entry #3 by jbelmonte on May 29, 2004 8:02 pm

> The .py isn't an implementation detail on windows.

If that is the case, you must reconcile the "zconfig" tool, which has no such extension.

By the way, my zodb package submission to Debian was rejected due to precisely this generic naming issue.  I don't want to make user-visible changes local to the Debian distribution, so I hope this matter will be corrected in the near future.

________________________________________
= Comment - Entry #2 by chrisw on May 5, 2004 9:38 am

The .py isn't an implementation detail on windows.

So, I'm in agreement, except the new files hsould still have .py extensions...

Chris
________________________________________
= Request - Entry #1 by tim_one on May 4, 2004 3:22 pm

>From John Belmonte, on the zodb-dev list:

"""
I'd like to propose a renaming of the utilities currently placed in /usr/bin.  Rationale:

     * some items are generically named, such
       as "fstest".  A packager may be forced to
       rename these, or put them in a /usr/bin/zope
       subdirectory, either of which would break
       compatibility with other distributions.  This
       is the namespace pollution issue again.

     * for some items, such as "repozo", the relevant
       component cannot be discerned from the name.
       This isn't the case for most items, but even
       then the naming is ad hoc.

     * the .py extension is an implementation detail
       and shouldn't be exposed.  The zconfig tool
       follows this already.

     * the proposed names allow discovery through
       shell command completion (for example,
       "zeo-<tab><tab>")

 fsdump.py       zodb-fsdump
 fsrefs.py       zodb-fsrefs
 fstail.py       zodb-fstail
 fstest.py       zodb-fstest
 repozo.py       zodb-fsbackup
 zconfig         zconfig-check
 zeopack.py      zeo-pack
 runzeo.py       zeo-run
 zeopasswd.py    zeo-passwd
 mkzeoinst.py    zeo-mkinst
 zeoctl.py       zeo-ctl
 zdrun.py        zdaemon-run
 zdctl.py        zdaemon-ctl
"""

==============================================================