Rename bitcoin-wallet? #31827

Some chatter from IRC:

17:21:41 < darosior> It might be confusing to release both a bitcoin-wallet utility and a bitcoin-wallet binary as part of multiprocess?
17:24:08 < darosior> We could rename the utility, but then it would be nice to at least have one deprecation cycle. Given recent momentum i estimate it's possible we might release multiprocess in 
                     30.0, which means if we want to deprecate the bitcoin-wallet utility name we should do it.. now?
17:33:31 < sipa> bitcoin-wallet-util ?
...
23:38:57 < _aj_> darosior: bitcoin-wallet-process, bitcoin-gui-process, etc? it's multi *-process!
03:04:34 < Sjors[m]> darosior: at the moment there is no wallet binary if were to enable multiprocess. That won't happen until [#19460](/bitcoin-bitcoin/19460/).
...
03:05:18 < Sjors[m]> Or maybe already in [#10102](/bitcoin-bitcoin/10102/)
...
03:05:50 < Sjors[m]> In any case [#31802](/bitcoin-bitcoin/31802/) only adds bitcoin-node and bitcoin-gui.
...
03:07:19 < Sjors[m]> Though if we want to rename the utility eventually, it's always better to do it early.

Thanks for opening this issue. The multiprocess tracking issue has a section called "PRs for review related to building & releasing" and if you look at two PRs there #31375 and #31679 they should clear these questions up if you want to see exactly what changes are planned and implemented.

But basically, there is no need to rename any current command line tools or break any existing command lines.

#31375 adds one new command line utiltity called bitcoin. It has daemon gui rpc and wallet subcommands that can be used to access different functions and accepts options (all disabled by default) controlling whether to enable or disable different IPC and multiprocess features.

#31679 moves new binaries out of bin/ into libexec/ where they will not be on the PATH, and there should be little need to call them directly, though calling them directly will still work.

Maybe to phrase it differently, it seems that the idea is to expand the current bitcoin-wallet to support IPC, as implemented in #19460. So there's no name clash.

cc @sipa @ajtowns @darosior

Maybe to phrase it differently, it seems that the idea is to expand the current bitcoin-wallet to support IPC, as implemented in #19460. So there's no name clash.

I just think that's an implementation detail and there's no need to break the command line or rename binaries in any case.

There are two cases (1) wallet ipc features (like connecting to a node to perform some online operation, or starting an dedicated RPC server) are implemented in bitcoin-wallet, or (2) online wallet features using IPC are implemented in the some other executable in libexec/.

In either case, command line to access these features should be bitcoin wallet FEATURE and bitcoin should call the right executable.

It sounds like we've now documented that nothing needs to change, so closing this.