Bug#706043: re-name: really necessary?
Hi, I'd like to echo Stuart Prescott in #706043, and Simon McVittie
on -devel¹: I don't normally complain about archive bloat too much
but in this case re-name looks very superfluous.
I'm also not clear on why you've renamed the upstream name from
rename to re-name. You claim in README.Source:
> It is a generical name and was modified to re-name to be introduced in
> Debian.
"rename" is not a current package name, re-name is just as generic
with the added disadvantage that it is not the upstream name. Although
I suppose alternatives would not be appropriate for /usr/bin/rename,
since the calling syntax is completely different to prename (not sure
which other packages provide a /usr/bin/rename alternative), so you're
left to choose which is more appealing: upstream name:debian package
or debian package:binary name.
As an irrelevant side-note it's nice to see a debian/rules file that
adds --parallel to dh(1) calls.
¹http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2013/04/msg00690.html
Reply to: