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

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

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.


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


 .''`.  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

Reply to: