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

[Matthew Vernon <matthew@debian.org>]

Hi,

Thanks for this.

> 1. While the former "should" is guarded by "requires", I think the
>     latter can be read as a recommendation. I therefore propose replacing
>     it with "must" to make the override more obvious.
>
> 2. While option B reads fine to me, option A is a little confusing to
>     me due to the combination of the naming requirement with the
>     mentioning of the conflict. Given the rename.ul name, there seems to
>     be no reason to cause a conflict at all and we can simply require
>     that. As such I think the options should be fully separated.

I think I would generally like TC resolutions to be "natural English to 
be interpreted pragmatically, particularly in light of the rationale" 
rather than bullet-proof legalese. Now is not the time to die on this 
particular hill, though :-)

> ===Begin Resolution A'
> The Technical Committee overrides the util-linux maintainer, and
> requires that util-linux's rename should be shipped as
> /usr/bin/rename.ul in a binary package built from src:util-linux. The
> package containing rename.ul must not conflict with the rename package
> nor divert /usr/bin/rename.
> ===End Resolution A'
>
> ===Begin Resolution B'
> The Technical Committee overrides the util-linux maintainer, and requires
> that util-linux's rename should be shipped in a binary package built from
> src:util-linux. If this package Conflicts with the rename package, then it
> must not contain any other binaries.
> ===End Resolution B'

I hereby modify my options A and B to replace them with the contents of 
A' and B' thus.

[I'll do the necessary C&P when calling for a vote on the ballot]

Thanks,

Matthew