On 2024-07-29 5:21 p.m., Abel Abraham Camarillo Ojeda wrote:
>
>
> 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...
>
This is what I'm planning to do.  Debian's port is old (1.3.8 for 
bookworm, 3.1.x for unstable) and I think pre-dates the v3/v4 distinction.