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

[Christoph Berg <myon@debian.org>]

Re: Matthew Vernon
> On 29/03/2022 00:55, Sean Whitton wrote:
> > On Mon 28 Mar 2022 at 10:35PM +02, Christoph Berg wrote:
> > > The problem here is that if ul-extra contains things besides rename,
> > > and it conflicts with the perl rename, people will rightfully complain
> > > that they can't install /usr/bin/fincore-from-ul-extra and
> > > /usr/bin/rename-from-perl at the same time.
> > 
> > Indeed, and doesn't it violate Policy 10.1, which says "Two different
> > packages must not install programs with different functionality but with
> > the same filenames" ?  Perhaps it's an edge case.
> 
> Yeah, I don't think we serve our users by having two different packages both
> of which want to install /usr/bin/rename.
> 
> I'm still not quite sure why the previous path is so objectionable - we
> shipped /usr/bin/rename.ul for years, Debian (and derivative) users will be
> expecting it there, having util-linux-extra (WLOG) install it there seems
> like the right answer (and the one least surprising to our users)...

Hi Chris,

the TC was discussing this issue at the meeting on Tuesday.

We acknowledge that there are several possible ways to install it and
steer around the fact that there's also the "perl" rename. Probably
all of these have their warts - the above summarizes the current views
of the TC members: having util-linux-extra conflict with the perl
rename while it contains other binaries is undesirable, and a more
fine-grained solution would be preferred. Or just provide it under the
old name.

Could you outline the plan you have with bringing rename(.ul) back?
Would it be possible to give us feedback until the end of this month,
so we can wrap it up before the next TC meeting?

Thanks,
Christoph
Debian Technical Committee