[bind10-dev] bikeshed alert: bind10 or boss or bob

[Shane Kerr]

Jinmei,

On Tuesday, 2013-01-29 11:07:15 -0800, 
JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 <jinmei at isc.org> wrote:
> 
> In that sense one possibility might be to add to bindctl the ability
> of starting the system:
> 
> # bindctl start
> (which only works on a local machine, doesn't start an interactive
> session, but invokes the boss/init/main/whatever process and exits)
> 
> just like apachectl or postfix(1).

That's a good idea (although I confess I didn't know that apachectl or
postfix worked like that, since I always use startup scripts for
whatever system I am on).
 
> Anyway, as is often the case for bikeshed matters,
> opinions/preferences seem to matter, and naming can actually be an
> important topic it won't be very productive to spend too much time on
> this topic.  So, at this point, I suggest leaving it to our manager
> and implementing what he chooses.

For now, I propose the following:

1. We use b10-init as the name of the startup program.
2. We create a script named "bind10" which invokes the b10-init program.

My logic is that in Unix we have an "init" process, which serves a very
similar function to what b10-init will be doing for BIND 10. Yes "init"
sounds like it is only used at startup, but there is precedence for
this specific behavior so it shouldn't confuse administrators.

As for the "bind10" script... I think it makes sense to start BIND 10
by invoking... bind10. The reasoning behind making it a script rather
than just linking (hard or symbolic) to the "b10-init" file is so that
the execution ends up being the same name and everything. Something
like this:

   $ cat bind10
   #! /bin/sh
   BIND10_SBIN_DIR=`dirname $0`
   exec ${BIND10_SBIN_DIR}/b10-init $*

Unless there are objections, we can go forward with this.

Cheers,

--
Shane