Renaming s4 'net' to 'samba-tool'
abartlet at samba.org
Wed Oct 27 17:15:00 MDT 2010
On Wed, 2010-10-27 at 16:06 -0700, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-10-27 at 23:07 +0300, Kamen Mazdrashki wrote:
> > Hi Jelmer,
> > On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 22:12, Jelmer Vernooij <jelmer at vernstok.nl> wrote:
> > > Does anybody else have an opinion on this? samba-tool seems reasonable
> > > to me for the reasons Kai mentions, and it'd be great if we can move
> > > this forward so we can allow installation of both trees at the same
> > > time.
> > >
> > It seems nobody can come up with a good name for a tool that does-it-all
> > and everybody get used to just call it 'net' :)
> > I think that no matter what we come up with, it will be equally good and bad.
> > Personally I like 'samba-adm' a little bit more as most of the task the tool
> > performs and I know of are in admin domain
> > 'samba-tool' is nice too!
> So, I think samba-adm would probably make more sense as a name except
> that we actually have functionality in net that doesn't qualify as
> I think samba-adm or samba-admin would be good names, but we'd have to
> move some of the existing functionality out into a different tool if we
> use them.
As I think it would be silly to duplicate the 'net' infrastructure, or
create multiple binary wrappers, I really think 'samba-tool' is the most
sensible choice that has been made.
Our history with maintaining multiple tools suggests to me that we will
keep adding 'not admin' additional functions rather than actually build
another tool, and even if we did, we would be back with admins thinking
'was that in 'samba-adm' or 'samba-user-tool' when dealing with related
concepts like 'password set/change'.
Andrew Bartlett http://samba.org/~abartlet/
Authentication Developer, Samba Team http://samba.org
Samba Developer, Cisco Inc.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 190 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
More information about the samba-technical