Rename swarm deb package about swarm HOT 28 CLOSED

I think go-swarm seems most intuitive.

from swarm.

@gbalint this is my vote too (i.e. rename Ubuntu package to ethereum-swarm), and I think it should still install a binary called swarm ✌️

from swarm.

the ubuntu package for go-ethereum is conflicting with an existing package which also has an executable named swarm

I don't think the name of the ubuntu package should influence the name of the binary (for example to install ping you install the iputils-ping package, not the ping package, they don't have to match).

As mentioned here, we should just change the package name to something different like ethereum-swarm, but the binary can still be called swarm.

To do so, we would need an extra field in this entry to indicate that the package name should differ from the binary name.

This does of course mean that running apt-get install ethereum-swarm swarm will lead to a conflict because both packages provide a swarm binary, but I think that is an edge case we don't need to worry about (this is also the case if you run apt-get install iputils-ping inetutils-ping).

from swarm.

to go-swarm or gswarm or something to prepare for multiple implementations, multiple swarm clients. Let's not confuse the network with the client.

from swarm.

I would vote for gswarm, it is consistent with geth

from swarm.

no its not, gbzz is consistent with geth

from swarm.

Fair enough, I meant this only between go-swarm and gswarm

from swarm.

I don't think the name of the ubuntu package should influence the name of the binary (for example to install ping you install the iputils-ping package, not the ping package, they don't have to match).

The problem is not the package name, but that it installs an executable named swarm.

from swarm.

Sorry @lmars , I just realized that in your last paragraph you describe the binary name conflict too.

from swarm.

@lmars @gbalint what about go-swarm and a symlink that links to swarm if not exist? We could add a bzz symlink too.

from swarm.

Let's just go with @lmars 's solution because that is the easiest, and ignore the executable name conflict.
Just fix the package name

from swarm.

hang on. we're not just wanting to fix some Ubuntu deb dependency conflict. There were real outside reasons for wanting to rename the binary. let's not confuse these issues.

from swarm.

I know this issue was made specifically regarding the conflict, but not naming the executable swarm has come up several times already. Let's fix both at the same time.

from swarm.

@homotopycolimit can you expand on the reasons for needing to change the binary name? I'm not refuting your claim, just curious what the reasons are.

from swarm.

I was thinking again, it might be ok to close this issue with just the fixed deb package name.

Changing the executable name came up (repeatedly) in the past. it was a common feedback for a while... I think it went like:

(1) It can be confusing - when you say swarm, do you mean the client or the network? (maybe think of the problems of not boing able to distinguish between bitcoin the network and bitcoin the token and bitcoin the client software... it's conceptually cleaner to separate them geth/ether/ethereum)
(2) want to allow for multiple clients interacting with the same network - swarm is this network and you interact with it using go-swarm, cppswarm, swarmctl, pyswarm or beekeper.
(3) solves the name conflict

...I don't remember all really, so I retract my objection and let you guys decide. I'm ambivalent on this.

from swarm.

Ok thanks, personally I'm not confused by the binary being called swarm (I in fact prefer it to all other alternatives proposed here), because it is a "CLI for Swarm" (just like aws is a "CLI for AWS"), but maybe that is just me.

I suspect other clients after the reference one will pick their own names (like Parity picked a name for the Rust Ethereum client, parity).

from swarm.

archlinux uses the -cli suffix for cli-apps... swarm-cli?

from swarm.

@nolash I assume you are proposing to change the ubuntu package name to swarm-cli (rather than the binary)?

If so, that seems reasonable, but if you mean the binary then, even in archlinux, the AWS CLI package is called aws-cli but it installs a binary called aws.

from swarm.

@lmars I use telegram-cli too, that installs binary as telegram-cli, so there seems to be some wiggle room. (telegram-cli is in AUR, though)

from swarm.

I would vote for ethereum-swarm, because the -cli postfix is not typical in debian packages, and it is also clearer than swarm alone, which is not really a unique name.
So even if it would not be a name conflict I think it is helpful to really specify that this is the ethereum swarm, and nothing to do with plenty of other stuff out there which is called swarm, e.g. Foursquare Swarm, Docker swarm, Swarm City, etc.

from swarm.

What does it take to rename the ubuntu package?

from swarm.

@homotopycolimit some form of change to this code.

from swarm.

"Ethereum Swarm daemon and tools"
The daemon is also the tools :)

from swarm.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the current code seems to support only packages with the same name for an executable. Do we want to go through the trouble of adding functionality for packages that install binaries with other names?

from swarm.

I think that's what we'll have to do. Let's not re-open the renaming debate. It took too long last time ;)

from swarm.

is it hard to do?

from swarm.

It is the only binary/package out of all the others listed at build/ci.go:85, and we are just adding complexity.

It is not that I am completely against that, but we should def involve the go-ethereum team, before doing it.

from swarm.

Geth team is fine with having different names for package and binary so we can go ahead and refactor build/ci.go (debExecutables, templates, etc.)

from swarm.