On Sun, Apr 10, 2022 at 03:17:22AM +0200, gregor herrmann wrote: > On Sat, 09 Apr 2022 19:00:37 +0200, Helmut Grohne wrote: > > > Chris proposes to transition /usr/bin/rename from the perl API to the > > util-linux API. > [..] > > Dom (or whoever maintains perl's rename now), would you agree to release > > the /usr/bin/rename name to use it for util-linux' implementation > > retaining prename for the perl implementation? > > (The "whoever" was and is the Debian Perl Group :)) > > > I'd like to quote Chris and Dom from #114 in this bug: > > On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 09:16:25AM +0100, Chris Hofstaedtler wrote: > > A very valid way of closing this discussion is saying "our > > (Perl) /usr/bin/rename is great, people should use that". > > That's the conclusion I came to when I looked at this at the point of > packaging rename separately. There doesn't seem to be any benefit to > changing this command line interface in Debian at this stage even though > I don't think it should have been there in the first place. > > Dominic > > I think this conclusion still holds. > > > Some additional thoughts: > * Shipping u-l's rename as /usr/bin/rename.ul might be nice for users > who want to use it and are already used to this name. > * Switching /usr/bin/rename from perl's rename to u-l's rename will > break interactive and scripted user experience. > * A Conflicts of a new util-linux-$something against file-rename will > be painful for users. > * Personally I very much prefer compatibility with Debian's history > over compatibility with Fedora. > * Side note: "releasing the /usr/bin/rename name" is an interesting > framing.
+1 to all of this. Furthermore I'm troubled that this discussion rolled on for two months having dropped the perl folk, in a circular fashion. That doesn't seem to be in the spirit of cooperation alluded to in https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1003653#122