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

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

Dear Sean,

first of all: many thanks to the technical committee for taking care of my request! This was my first request, and I am really impressed by the way this was discussed and handled!

Personally, I would still prefer a "rename" entry in the alternative system with util-linux's rename as default, since util-linux is installed in every Debian system. I know, the syntaxes of util-linux's rename and of Perl's rename are incompatible, but a user who wants to use Perl's rename would probably know its syntax, would have to actively install its package, and would then choose Perl's rename in the alternative system.

If an entry in the alternative system is not wanted, for me, it would also be fine to have access to util-linux's rename in any PATH with any recognizable name. I would then create a soft-link, say, /usr/local/bin/rename, that points to util-linux's rename.

Best regards,


On 08.03.22 20:58, Sean Whitton wrote:
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.


Dirk Kostrewa
Gene Center Munich
Department of Biochemistry, AG Hopfner
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München
Feodor-Lynen-Str. 25
D-81377 Munich
Phone:  +49-89-2180-76845
Fax:    +49-89-2180-76998

Reply to: