Hello,
On Wed 20 Apr 2022 at 03:31PM +01, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> ===Rationale
>
> There are two "rename" programs - the perl rename, and the util-linux
> rename. Debian and its derivatives have shipped the perl rename as
> /usr/bin/rename, whilst other distributions (e.g. Fedora) have shipped
> the util-linux rename thus. The two implementations are incompatible.
> Users might reasonably desire both implementations to be available on
> the same system; they are designed to meet different needs.
>
> Backwards-compatibility (and the lack of a compelling argument that
> rename from util-linux should replace perl rename) means that
> /usr/bin/rename in Debian should remain the perl rename.
>
> Prior to bullseye, util-linux's rename was shipped as
> /usr/bin/rename.ul; Debian's users who wish to use util-linux's rename
> will expect it to be in this location.
>
> ===End Rationale
>
> ===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
>
> ===Begin Resolution N
> None of the above
> ===End Resolution N
I vote
A > B > N
--
Sean Whitton
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature