Christoph Berg <myon@debian.org> writes: > Re: Chris Hofstaedtler >> > * 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. > > Hi, > > I like that package name. > >> > * where should it be installed? >> > - /usr/bin >> > - something else? >> >> /usr/bin/rename > >> > * should there be a Conflicts or Breaks relation with the perl rename? >> >> I think this will be necessary. > > The problem here is that if ul-extra contains things besides rename, > and it conflicts with the perl rename, people will rightfully complain > that they can't install /usr/bin/fincore-from-ul-extra and > /usr/bin/rename-from-perl at the same time. > > Or would you solve that using alternatives, without the conflicts? Is it possible to have alternatives default to installing neither option by default? I suspect not, but something like that might allow local admins to install either as /usr/bin/rename while not encouraging the use of that path in packaging scripts (which should use either rename.ul or file-rename to get the version they really want). I suppose the same result could be constructed with a shared low-priority debconf question about which to use, defaulting to neither. An approach which strikes me as inelegant, but ought to work, would be for something essential to provide the default alternative as a script that spits out a warning that you should be using whichever of the specific names you really meant, or that you could define 'rename' as an alias in your profile, or even that you might use update-alternetives to install one of them as 'rename' system-wide. Cheers, Phil. -- |)| Philip Hands [+44 (0)20 8530 9560] HANDS.COM Ltd. |-| http://www.hands.com/ http://ftp.uk.debian.org/ |(| Hugo-Klemm-Strasse 34, 21075 Hamburg, GERMANY
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature