Bug#1003653: Revision of removal of rename.ul from package util-linux
Hello Christoph, On Sun 23 Jan 2022 at 10:27PM +01, Christoph Berg wrote: > Re: Sean Whitton >> Hello, >> >> On Sun 23 Jan 2022 at 10:04PM +01, Chris Hofstaedtler wrote: >> >> > I guess the best thing would be to introduce a new binary package, >> > but I am out of ideas on naming it. Open for ideas here. >> >> util-linux-extra? > > If it's about rename only, "rename-ul" or even "rename.ul"? > > I guess it should also contain the historical name as a symlink. > > Christoph Well, Chris mentioned wanting to transition some other things out of the essential package in addition to this one. Also, the ftp team would not love the idea of a single-script package. -- Sean Whitton signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1003653: Revision of removal of rename.ul from package util-linux
Re: Sean Whitton > Hello, > > On Sun 23 Jan 2022 at 10:04PM +01, Chris Hofstaedtler wrote: > > > I guess the best thing would be to introduce a new binary package, > > but I am out of ideas on naming it. Open for ideas here. > > util-linux-extra? If it's about rename only, "rename-ul" or even "rename.ul"? I guess it should also contain the historical name as a symlink. Christoph
Bug#1003653: Revision of removal of rename.ul from package util-linux
Hello, On Sun 23 Jan 2022 at 10:04PM +01, Chris Hofstaedtler wrote: > I guess the best thing would be to introduce a new binary package, > but I am out of ideas on naming it. Open for ideas here. util-linux-extra? -- Sean Whitton signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1003653: Revision of removal of rename.ul from package util-linux
* Christoph Berg [220123 21:51]: > Re: Don Armstrong [..] > > Not impossible to change, of course, but an ideal transition would avoid > > breaking currently working scripts and installs. > > We were discussing the bug in last week's tech-ctte meeting, and the > gist of the discussion was that, in a ideal world, Debian would be > shipping the util-linux version as /usr/bin/rename to match what other > distributions are shipping, but that since we have been shipping the > Perl rename for the past 20 years, a proper transition would be very > hard. Especially in the light that this is an end-user tool and not > something we can control by a MBF and a lot of patches. Yeah. I was thinking we could ship *one* release without a /usr/bin/rename at all. Not sure if that is a good idea. > Unfortunately the current defaults seem to be that we have neither, > none of my systems has any "rename" command. OTOH that might indicate > there's a head-start on a transition introducing u-l's rename as > /usr/bin/rename. > > Chris, would u-l be willing to reintroduce rename, or do you rather > want to reduce the number of commands? > > Maybe if alternatives are not the correct tool, moving the u-l rename > to a separate package, and conflicting with the perl rename is better? > (Still ugly, but the situation isn't ideal.) I believe using alternatives would introduce an RC bug. I was hoping we could put util-linux' rename into the "bsdextrautils" binary package, which has utilities like write, col, etc; to avoid putting it into an Essentials: yes package, and to avoid a new binary package. However, picking bsdextrautils seems ... maybe not ideal if it should Conflict with rename. I guess the best thing would be to introduce a new binary package, but I am out of ideas on naming it. Open for ideas here. Chris
Bug#1003653: Revision of removal of rename.ul from package util-linux
Re: Don Armstrong > > I understand the perl group maintainer scripts switched to using the > > /usr/bin/file-rename name. We could investigate rdeps of rename and > > see what they use, and/or change them. > > This problem goes beyond reverse dependencies; there are also a > not-insignificant number of user scripts which on Debian expect > /usr/bin/rename to be the perl version (and probably a similar number on > other distributions which expect the opposite). > > Not impossible to change, of course, but an ideal transition would avoid > breaking currently working scripts and installs. We were discussing the bug in last week's tech-ctte meeting, and the gist of the discussion was that, in a ideal world, Debian would be shipping the util-linux version as /usr/bin/rename to match what other distributions are shipping, but that since we have been shipping the Perl rename for the past 20 years, a proper transition would be very hard. Especially in the light that this is an end-user tool and not something we can control by a MBF and a lot of patches. Unfortunately the current defaults seem to be that we have neither, none of my systems has any "rename" command. OTOH that might indicate there's a head-start on a transition introducing u-l's rename as /usr/bin/rename. Chris, would u-l be willing to reintroduce rename, or do you rather want to reduce the number of commands? Maybe if alternatives are not the correct tool, moving the u-l rename to a separate package, and conflicting with the perl rename is better? (Still ugly, but the situation isn't ideal.) Christoph
