Re: RFS: patmv -- a bulk renaming tool
Jay Berkenbilt <email@example.com> writes:
>> On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 08:13:32PM +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
>> > So: I suggest you submit it for addition to renameutils.
>> > As a side effect, renameutils and your package get a comaintainer.
>> Hmmm. Maybe you should see if the renameutils maintainer is
>> willing/interested in including it first; if not I will look at it.
>> I agree that it makes sense for it to be separate from perl; but perhaps
>> not separate from renameutils.
> I have to assert, respectfully, that I don't think patmv belongs with
> renameutils or any other existing package. I guess I'm confused as to
> why the suggestion of including it in another package has come up at
> all. patmv is its own package with a life outside of these other
> packages. That should, in my opinion, be sufficient reason to have it
> be a separate package. I think most upstream authors would be
> reluctant to have their software added to Debian by being combined
> with some other package that they don't have anything to do with. If
> you disagree, please let me know; I'm definitely open to hearing
> compelling arguments to the contrary.
Tiny packages are generally frowned upon in Debian since they
unnecessarily bloat the Packages file. So, small scripts like yours
tend to be collected into a single package with other related scripts.
If everyone packaged their pet scripts into separate packages, the
already very large number of packages in Debian would grow enormously.
You win again, gravity!