Claudio Jeker(cjeker@diehard.n-r-g.com) on 2025.04.25 13:31:32 +0200:
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2025 at 11:36:50AM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> Would it be acceptable to use lldpd as program name but use rc.d/lldp as
> startup script?
> 
> The only other problem point would be the file in /var/run but I think
> that implies that someone wants to run both tools at the same time which
> IMO makes little sense and people can then use an overwrite to toggle the
> control socket path.
> 
> I would really like to see dlg's tool in our tree and it seems this is the
> main pain point.

Does the daemon need to have a "d" at the end?

If not, how about

lldp	- the daemon binary
lldpctl	- the tool
lldp	- rc-script
_lldp	- username

/B.