Underscore's not so good. Make it easy to type and maybe tab-completable 
from the original name. People can always alias or symlink into ~/bin or 
something if they want the original name.

-- 
  Sent from a phone, apologies for poor formatting.

On 29 July 2024 22:34:48 Abel Abraham Camarillo Ojeda <acamari@verlet.org> 
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...