On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 3:27 PM Paul Galbraith <paul@galbraiths.ca> wrote:

> 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.
>

Yes, debian sid (unstable) provides:

/usr/bin/_b2v4
/usr/bin/b2v3
/usr/bin/backblaze-b2

https://packages.debian.org/sid/all/backblaze-b2/filelist

Don't know what I feel about the underscore one, though...