[ClusterLabs] Possible idea for 2.0.0: renaming the Pacemaker daemons

[Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais]

On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 00:54:01 +0200
Jan Pokorný <jpokorny at redhat.com> wrote:

> On 09/04/18 12:10 -0500, Ken Gaillot wrote:
> > Based on the list discussion and feedback I could coax out of others, I
> > will change the Pacemaker daemon names, including the log tags, for
> > 2.0.0-rc3.
> > 
> > I will add symlinks for the old names, to allow help/version/metadata
> > calls in user scripts and higher-level tools to continue working during
> > a transitional time. (Even if we update all known tools, we need to
> > keep compatibility with existing versions for a good while.)
> > 
> > I won't change the systemd unit file names or API library names, since
> > they aren't one-to-one with the daemons, and will have a bigger impact
> > on client apps.
> > 
> > Here's my current plan:
> > 
> > Old name          New name
> > --------          --------
> > pacemakerd        pacemakerd
> > attrd             pacemaker-attrd
> > cib               pacemaker-confd  
> 
> Let's restate it: do we indeed want to reinforce a misnomer that CIB
> is (user) configuration only?

Agree. FWIW, +1 for the "Infod" suggestion.

> > crmd              pacemaker-controld
> > lrmd              pacemaker-execd
> > pengine           pacemaker-schedulerd
> > stonithd          pacemaker-fenced
> > pacemaker_remoted pacemaker-remoted
> > 
> > I had planned to use the "pcmk-" prefix, but I kept thinking about the
> > goal of making things more intuitive for novice users, and a novice
> > user's first instinct will be to search the logs for "pacemaker"  
> 
> journalctl -u pacemaker?
> 
> We could also ship an example syslog configuration that aggegrates
> messages from enumerated programs (that we know and user may not offhand)
> into a dedicated file (well, this would be quite redundant to native
> logging into the file).
> 
> IOW, I wouldn't worry that much.

+1

My 2¢...