Re: RFS: patmv -- a bulk renaming tool
Jay Berkenbilt <ejb@ql.org> writes:
>> On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 08:13:32PM +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
>> > So: I suggest you submit it for addition to renameutils.
>> > As a side effect, renameutils and your package get a comaintainer.
>>
>> Hmmm. Maybe you should see if the renameutils maintainer is
>> willing/interested in including it first; if not I will look at it.
>>
>> I agree that it makes sense for it to be separate from perl; but perhaps
>> not separate from renameutils.
>
> I have to assert, respectfully, that I don't think patmv belongs with
> renameutils or any other existing package. I guess I'm confused as to
> why the suggestion of including it in another package has come up at
> all. patmv is its own package with a life outside of these other
> packages. That should, in my opinion, be sufficient reason to have it
> be a separate package. I think most upstream authors would be
> reluctant to have their software added to Debian by being combined
> with some other package that they don't have anything to do with. If
> you disagree, please let me know; I'm definitely open to hearing
> compelling arguments to the contrary.
Tiny packages are generally frowned upon in Debian since they
unnecessarily bloat the Packages file. So, small scripts like yours
tend to be collected into a single package with other related scripts.
If everyone packaged their pet scripts into separate packages, the
already very large number of packages in Debian would grow enormously.
--
You win again, gravity!
Reply to: