On 23 February 2012 03:36, Jeremy Lavergne <[email protected]> wrote: >> it *does*, for some reason, still respond to "man rename". > > That's rename(2). If it's a command line program, it'd be rename(1). > > These categories plan am important trickle down in this situation ;-)
Right you are; well spotted. In my defence, it was past my bedtime :) On 23 February 2012 06:07, Dan Ports <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 03:24:44AM +0000, Sam Kuper wrote: >> One slight quibble: given that the script seems normally to be invoked >> with "rename" rather than "file-rename" (even the synopsis in the man >> page I get from entering "man file-rename" seems to expect the script >> to be invoked with "rename" rather than "file-rename"!), I think it >> might be better if the MacPorts port follows this convention. That >> way, users used to using the "rename" script they've obtained via >> Debian/Ubuntu/Brew/whatever won't be confused if they switch to >> MacPorts. Does this sound fair? > > Sure. I added a symlink for rename -> file-rename. > > I didn't do that originally because the File::Rename module installs > the script as as `file-rename` and I thought there might be some > differences between it and the original `rename` script, but upon > closer examination it's clearly the same script in slightly different > form. Great stuff. Thanks once again, Dan! Sam _______________________________________________ macports-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users
