[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#1003653: Revision of removal of rename.ul from package util-linux

Re: Don Armstrong
> > I understand the perl group maintainer scripts switched to using the
> > /usr/bin/file-rename name. We could investigate rdeps of rename and
> > see what they use, and/or change them.
> This problem goes beyond reverse dependencies; there are also a
> not-insignificant number of user scripts which on Debian expect
> /usr/bin/rename to be the perl version (and probably a similar number on
> other distributions which expect the opposite).
> Not impossible to change, of course, but an ideal transition would avoid
> breaking currently working scripts and installs.

We were discussing the bug in last week's tech-ctte meeting, and the
gist of the discussion was that, in a ideal world, Debian would be
shipping the util-linux version as /usr/bin/rename to match what other
distributions are shipping, but that since we have been shipping the
Perl rename for the past 20 years, a proper transition would be very
hard. Especially in the light that this is an end-user tool and not
something we can control by a MBF and a lot of patches.

Unfortunately the current defaults seem to be that we have neither,
none of my systems has any "rename" command. OTOH that might indicate
there's a head-start on a transition introducing u-l's rename as

Chris, would u-l be willing to reintroduce rename, or do you rather
want to reduce the number of commands?

Maybe if alternatives are not the correct tool, moving the u-l rename
to a separate package, and conflicting with the perl rename is better?
(Still ugly, but the situation isn't ideal.)


Reply to: