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

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

Hello Christoph,

* Christoph Berg <myon@debian.org> [220407 15:11]:
> Re: Chris Hofstaedtler
> > 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.

I was not planning on doing that: stable already does not have

> > 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.

Given rename.ul is not in stable (bullseye), I do not think we
should do this. From a compatibility point of view, we do not win
anything.  At this point, we are more talking about shipping a new
program in a new place, than continuing to ship an existing program.

If we were talking about all of this before the stable release, I
would be a lot more open about other options. But by now almost two
years have passed since the change, and bullseye is out for ~ 9

I know we all want this TC issue to be resolved. But I do not want
to end up shipping rename.ul indefinitely.


Reply to: