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

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

* Christoph Berg <myon@debian.org> [220123 21:51]:
> Re: Don Armstrong
> > 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.

Yeah. I was thinking we could ship *one* release without a
/usr/bin/rename at all. Not sure if that is a good idea.

> 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
> /usr/bin/rename.
> 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.)

I believe using alternatives would introduce an RC bug.

I was hoping we could put util-linux' rename into the
"bsdextrautils" binary package, which has utilities like write, col,
etc; to avoid putting it into an Essentials: yes package, and to
avoid a new binary package. However, picking bsdextrautils seems
... maybe not ideal if it should Conflict with rename.

I guess the best thing would be to introduce a new binary package,
but I am out of ideas on naming it. Open for ideas here.


Reply to: