On 14/03/16 19:43, Technicien Informatique wrote: > Hi, > > Is there a reason the borgbackup package installs borg in two > different places (/usr/bin/borg & /usr/bin/borgbackup) ? > > I have to say this is a little bit confusing. The documentation says > you should call "borg", but your package is named "borgbackup", but > then you can you either name. > > I think choosing a side (borg OR borgbackup) and being consistent > everywhere would be better. >
Hi Technicien, the package was created as "borgbackup" (not simply as "borg"), and most™ packages install a binary with the same name as the package. (Hence the symlink initially) Personally I find it nice if command names are short and memorable, but in this case - "borg" already hits 56M Google results - it is possible that something totally unrelated might produce a name clash in the future, so even if we drop the symlink now, we might have to re-add and create conflict or alternative in the future, possibly adding a "canonical" filename (/usr/bin/borg.borgbackup?). Also, upstream writes in their README.rst, first sentence: > BorgBackup (short: Borg) is a deduplicating backup program. which makes it feel natural to allow both the shorthand and the full program name to be called. Unless there are actual problems having the symlink, I would prefer not to drop it -- some users will already have used the long name in their scripts and I prefer not to make backwards-incompatible changes unless there is a reason to do so. Cheers, - Danny
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
