On Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 10:49:34AM +0200, G�tz Waschk wrote: > Or rename the binary of the wipe package, lam might be a bit more > important (think Mandrakeclustering).
You're kidding right? So some long existing program like say gpg is in the distro and someone comes along with a clustering package and decides they need a gpg command for something. You'd suggest that gpg change the name of their command? In fact gpg and other encryption tools are rather useless without wipe because the plaintext could be recovered from the drive. So the way I see it wipe is far more useful to people than some clustering tool. Further, a lot of the lam tools are already named lam<whatever>, e.g.: lamboot, lamclean, lamd, lamexec, lamgrow, lamhalt, lamnodes, lamshrink, lamtrace. Further when you consider what lam uses its wipe command for: >>>> 7.16 The wipe Command The wipe command is used as a "last resort" command, and is typically only necessary if lamhalt fails. This usually only occurs in error conditions, such as if a node fails. The wipe command takes most of the same parameters as the lamboot command � it launches a process on each node in the boot schema to kill the LAM RTE on that node. Hence, it should be used with the same (or an equivalent) boot schema file as was used with lamboot. <<<< It is likely it isn't even used all that much. The alternatives to renaming lam-runtime's wipe are: * rename wipe wipe's, but just what would we call it? * Use the alternatives system, but isn't this wrong since they don't do the same or similar things, i.e. they aren't alternatives? * Conflict with each other, which IMHO is silly since both packages could be used together. IMNSHO renaming the lam-runtime's wipe command is the best solution to the problem. -- Ben Reser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://ben.reser.org "What upsets me is not that you lied to me, but that from now on I can no longer believe you." -- Nietzsche
