[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 Sun, Apr 10, 2022 at 03:17:22AM +0200, gregor herrmann wrote:
> 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.

+1 to all of this.

Furthermore I'm troubled that this discussion rolled on for two months
having dropped the perl folk, in a circular fashion. That doesn't seem
to be in the spirit of cooperation alluded to in


Reply to: