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

[Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name>]

Dear Chris, Dirk,

On Tue 08 Feb 2022 at 09:23pm +01, Helmut Grohne wrote:

> We've discussed a number of possible ways to put it back (various
> packages, various paths, with or without update-alternatives, with or
> without Conflicts). From what you said, I understand that: [...]
>
> Given these, we think that much of the issue can be resolved
> cooperatively. To get there we (as ctte) ask you to explain how you
> prefer adding the util-linux rename executable as precisely as you see
> it at this stage. [...]

The ctte discussed this bug at our meeting today and determined that
there are two resolutions to this bug supported by at least one member:

(A) src:util-linux should build a binary package that ships util-linux's
    rename as "rename.ul" somewhere on PATH.

(B) src:util-linux should build a binary package that ships util-linux's
    rename, but does not install it as "rename" anywhere on PATH.
    It is not settled, at present, whether util-linux's rename should be
    provided somewhere on PATH with a name other than "rename".

Option (A) is meant to be (B) plus the additional requirement that it be
rename.ul somewhere on PATH.  Neither option says anything about whether
util-linux's rename.ul should be installed in an Essential package.

Chris, we haven't heard back from you in response to our request for
input quoted above.  We would still very much like to hear what you
think of (A) and (B) and whether you prefer some (C).  If we don't hear
back from you by the time of our next committee meeting in a month, we
will consider voting on (A) and (B).

Dirk, we would be grateful if you would comment on these two
resolutions, but we aren't going to block resolving this bug on hearing
from you.

Thanks both.

-- 
Sean Whitton