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

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

Re: Chris Hofstaedtler
> I see two clear options:

Hi Chris,

thanks for the prompt feedback!

> A) Keep the status quo ("rename is not part of Debians util-linux").
>    Very clear, very simple, no work.

But that's not what users want, there have been several requests to
have rename reintroduced.

> B) Finish the very old migration. Have util-linux(-extra) ship
>    /usr/bin/rename; perl rename can be prename/file-rename as today,
>    but would need to drop the update-alternatives symlink; versioned
>    Conflicts/Provides/Replaces would probably be needed. I would also
>    suggest having no binary package ship /usr/bin/rename for one
>    release.

What name would you use in util-linux-extra for the time of the one
release where no package ships /usr/bin/rename? /usr/bin/rename.ul
seems most sensible to me here, which would also match the status
before starting a migration.

> Personally I am leaning towards option A) - mostly because we
> are/were already spending a lot more time on mails than what I think
> the work of option B) would entail. Also I believe the CTTE does not
> want to do any of this fine grainted technical detail design work.

We don't want to dictate *how* this should be resolved, but we are
interested in *having* it resolved, and A) isn't that.

To me, the plausible way forward here seems to be this:

* Reintroduce it as /usr/bin/rename.ul in util-linux-extra
* Have u-l-e be pseudo-essential for one release
* At this point the TC issue is resolved
* Potentially work with the perl-rename maintainers to transition to a
  different layout of the two utilities. That's then indeed outside
  the scope of the TC.


Reply to: