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

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

Hi Helmut,

* Helmut Grohne <helmut@subdivi.de> [220208 21:23]:
> Hi Chris,
> On Sun, Jan 23, 2022 at 10:04:34PM +0100, Chris Hofstaedtler wrote:
> > 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.
> This paragraph can be vaguely interpreted as an intention to put the
> util-linux rename implementation back into some binary package under
> some path. Doing so would go a significant way towards what the
> submitter of the ctte bug wants.
> 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:
>  * You disagree with putting it in some transitively essential package.
>  * You think that Debian should make a choice about the rename API and
>    stick to that.
>  * You take issue with "rename.ul" as a program name, because it is
>    inconsistent with other Linux distributions.
>  * You agree on shipping the util-linux rename executable (with
>    unspecified filename at this stage) in some Debian binary package in
>    principle.
> Do you confirm these statements?


I would like to say that my point of view would be "if we change
something, lets do the right thing going forward". If we need to
break with the past, lets do it now instead of delaying further.

> 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.
> In your option,
>  * which binary package should contain the util-linux rename?
>    - bsdextrautils
>    - something else

util-linux-extra. Unrelatedly, other non-essential binaries from
util-linux should also move into this package, but this is only
tangentially related.

>  * how should it be named?
>    - rename
>    - rename.ul
>    - something else
>  * where should it be installed?
>    - /usr/bin
>    - something else?


>  * should it be managed with update-alternatives?

No. My understanding is this would be a bug. Also, I subscribe to
the idea that (pseudo-)essential packages should not use the
update-alternatives mechanism. This last point might be easier 
with util-linux-extra.

>  * should there be a Conflicts or Breaks relation with the perl rename?

I think this will be necessary.

> If you feel unable to answer any of these, please say so.
> Thank you for taking the time to participate in this discussion.

I would like to ask a question: under which constitution point will
the CTTE act?

> Helmut


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: