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

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

* Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> [220124 05:56]:
> On Sun 23 Jan 2022 at 10:27PM +01, Christoph Berg wrote:
> > Re: Sean Whitton
> >> On Sun 23 Jan 2022 at 10:04PM +01, Chris Hofstaedtler wrote:
> >> > 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.
> >>
> >> util-linux-extra?
> >
> > If it's about rename only, "rename-ul" or even "rename.ul"?
> >
> > I guess it should also contain the historical name as a symlink.
> >
> > Christoph
> Well, Chris mentioned wanting to transition some other things out of the
> essential package in addition to this one.  Also, the ftp team would not
> love the idea of a single-script package.

I think this will mostly depend on what src:rename will/should do
(+CC: Debian Perl Group, Dominic Hargreaves).

For context, the idea is that /usr/bin/rename should become
src:util-linux' rename implementation. As was found in the past,
this is not possible using alternatives. As the util-linux
maintainer, I would also prefer to not having alternatives.

If the rename binary package drops /usr/bin/rename, rename.ul(*) can
start installing that, and conflict on old versions of rename.
Or, to make this transition more clear to users:
 - src:rename could drop /usr/bin/rename AND rename its binary package to
   file-rename (?) or prename (?)
 - rename.ul could Conflict: rename indefinitely


(*) "working title"

Reply to: