On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 3:04 PM Kirill A. Korinsky <kirill@korins.ky> wrote:

> On Mon, 29 Jul 2024 22:21:22 +0200,
> Abel Abraham Camarillo Ojeda <acamari@verlet.org> wrote:
> >
> > I'd be OK if we rename b2 in this port to something else...
> >
> > In debian they seem to rename the binary b2 -> backblaze-b2, according
> to:
> >
> > https://packages.debian.org/bookworm/all/backblaze-b2/filelist
> >
> > So, maybe a lot of people don't depend on that name on their scripts...
> >
> > Thoughts?
>
> Backblaze suggest to use b2v3 or b2v4 inside scripts [1]. I think that
> rename file and add Readme where explain why it has been renamed should be
> ok.
>
> Footnotes:
> [1]
> https://github.com/Backblaze/B2_Command_Line_Tool?tab=readme-ov-file#apiver-cli-versions-b2-vs-b2v3-b2v4-etc


Then maybe we need the following?:

b2 -> backblaze-b2
b2v3 -> backblaze-b2v3
b2v4 -> backblaze-b2v4

Referred docs still tell you to use `b2` straight: "if you want the latest
bells and whistles..."

I wonder why debian isn't providing the *v3, and *v4 binaries, maybe they
provide an older backblaze-b2 before that naming...