On 2025/04/25 12:04, Henning Brauer wrote:
> * Stuart Henderson <stu@spacehopper.org> [2025-04-25 03:25]:
> > On 2025/04/24 10:38, Lyndon Nerenberg (VE7TFX/VE6BBM) wrote:
> > > This is great!  Some quick testing shows it correctly sees
> > > all the Fortinet and Juniper hardware on my networks.
> > > 
> > > But I would suggest just calling it lldp[d] right from the
> > > start.  I don't see a conflict as it's makes no sense to 
> > > run both this and ports at the same time.  And if they
> > > are both installed, the ports cli names don't collisde
> > > with this one's.
> > 
> > The rc.d scripts conflict.
> 
> then the ports one needs to be adjusted.
> 
> our ntpd is ntpd, not ontpd.

yes and we had a problem with that around 5.0-5.1

> our ldapd is ldapd, not oldapd.

no conflict

> our smtpd is smtpd, not osmtpd.

no conflict

> our bgpd is bgpd, not obgpd.

the possibly-conflicting rc script was named quagga_bgpd from the start

> and so on and so on.

the rc-script could be renamed, but:

1. what to?

2. unless it's renamed in the release _before_ this is added, upgrades
will be broken. user updates base from a version with ports lldpd
installed to a version with lldpd from base, so overwriting rc.d/lldpd.
updating packages at that point will _remove_ the rc.d/lldpd script.

if we want to reuse existing names of things from ports in base we
could really do with a separate namespace for ports and base rc.d scripts.