On Sat, 09 Apr 2022 19:00:37 +0200, Helmut Grohne wrote: > Chris proposes to transition /usr/bin/rename from the perl API to the > util-linux API. [..] > Dom (or whoever maintains perl's rename now), would you agree to release > the /usr/bin/rename name to use it for util-linux' implementation > retaining prename for the perl implementation? (The "whoever" was and is the Debian Perl Group :)) I'd like to quote Chris and Dom from #114 in this bug: On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 09:16:25AM +0100, Chris Hofstaedtler wrote: > A very valid way of closing this discussion is saying "our > (Perl) /usr/bin/rename is great, people should use that". That's the conclusion I came to when I looked at this at the point of packaging rename separately. There doesn't seem to be any benefit to changing this command line interface in Debian at this stage even though I don't think it should have been there in the first place. Dominic I think this conclusion still holds. Some additional thoughts: * Shipping u-l's rename as /usr/bin/rename.ul might be nice for users who want to use it and are already used to this name. * Switching /usr/bin/rename from perl's rename to u-l's rename will break interactive and scripted user experience. * A Conflicts of a new util-linux-$something against file-rename will be painful for users. * Personally I very much prefer compatibility with Debian's history over compatibility with Fedora. * Side note: "releasing the /usr/bin/rename name" is an interesting framing. Cheers, gregor -- .''`. https://info.comodo.priv.at -- Debian Developer https://www.debian.org : :' : OpenPGP fingerprint D1E1 316E 93A7 60A8 104D 85FA BB3A 6801 8649 AA06 `. `' Member VIBE!AT & SPI Inc. -- Supporter Free Software Foundation Europe `-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital Signature