Index | Thread | Search

From:
Paul Galbraith <paul@galbraiths.ca>
Subject:
Re: [NEW] net/b2
To:
Abel Abraham Camarillo Ojeda <acamari@verlet.org>
Cc:
A Tammy <openbsd.ports@aisha.cc>, ports@openbsd.org
Date:
Mon, 29 Jul 2024 17:59:28 -0400

Download raw body.

Thread
  • Paul Galbraith:

    [NEW] net/b2

  • Abel Abraham Camarillo Ojeda:

    [NEW] net/b2

  • Paul Galbraith:

    [NEW] net/b2

  • Kirill A. Korinsky:

    [NEW] net/b2

  • Stuart Henderson:

    [NEW] net/b2

On 2024-07-29 5:34 p.m., Abel Abraham Camarillo Ojeda wrote:
>
>
> 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...
Once v4 was released, _b2v4 became b2v4.  Presumably there will be a 
_b2v5 at some point as they start developing out new CLI for v5.