[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 07:37:05PM +0200, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> Hi Dom and gregor,
> On Sun, Apr 10, 2022 at 03:06:56PM +0100, Dominic Hargreaves wrote:
> > +1 to all of this.
> Thank you for your replies. They're not unexpected, but we (or at least
> I) weren't entirely sure.
> > 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
> > 
> > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1003653#122
> At that time, we (ctte) didn't really consider changing the
> /usr/bin/rename API to be a viable option, but apparently Chris did and
> that only became fully clear much later. Thus the question popped up
> now.
> In any case, we now have three relevant opinions that form a
> contradiction when combined:
>  * Submitter: The util-linux rename implementation should be included in
>    Debian
>  * Chris: The util-linux rename should be either /usr/bin/rename or
>    absent.
>  * Dom/gregor: /usr/bin/rename should be perl rename.
> In all of this discussion, I think we didn't have such a clear
> understanding of the disagreement. It always looked solvable in a
> consensual way to me. That has somewhat changed now.
> The next step is checking back with Chris on whether his position could
> be adjusted. I would still prefer resolving this without using special
> ctte powers.

Thanks for the clarification.

By the way, it's possible that this discussion has taken place without
reference to the original bug where these issues were discussed at length:


I should have provided this link back in February when we were first
asked about it; mea culpa. I hope this is helpful.


Reply to: