withdrawing RFS for patmv (was RFS: patmv -- a bulk renaming tool)
> 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.
Your arguments and those of others have persuaded me to withdraw my
RFS for patmv. For now, I'll just put the Debian package for patmv on
my personal site along with a handful of other small tools that are
useful enough to share with a wider audience than their current user
base. If someone else decides that it's worth including in
renameutils, I have no objection. I'll likel contact the remameutils
maintainers and let them know about it, at least as a more advanced
alternative to the rename program that is packaged with Perl.
Please understand that I'm not withdrawing this because I feel bitter
or disappointed, but because I genuinely agree with the arguments. My
thinking prior to submitting my RFS was that, if a reasonable package
had been debianized, it made sense to submit it for inclusion in the
distribution where it would be easy to find and install. I now feel
that it's better to wait until the package has a wider user base or
serves some important purpose not served by other packages. (This
seems obvious in retrospect.) I'm sure I'm not alone, especially
among relative newcomers to Debian, in not even having read the names
of all the available packages, let alone knowing what they all do.
Although it's great to be able to install just about anything I know
about with apt-get install (rather than search all over the place for,
say, an rpm that may or may not coexist peacefully with other
packages), I completely acknowledge that patmv is not something anyone
will come looking for.
Thanks again for the responses and interest!
--
Jay Berkenbilt <ejb@ql.org>
http://www.ql.org/q/
Reply to: