* Sean Whitton [220124 05:56]:
> On Sun 23 Jan 2022 at 10:27PM +01, Christoph Berg wrote:
> > Re: Sean Whitton
> >> 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
As an end user I wish to register an objection to any solution to this bug that
makes it impossible for me to install a Debian system where, out of the box,
"rename" in the default PATH is the Perl rename. This is what my fingers
expect, and what dozens of non-packaged scripts rely on.
(I say
Christoph Berg writes:
> 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 shi
Hello Chris,
On Mon 24 Jan 2022 at 11:33AM +01, Chris Hofstaedtler wrote:
> For context, the idea is that /usr/bin/rename should become
> src:util-linux' rename implementation.
That seems likely to break a great many scripts, though?
Perhaps we should ship them both under a name other than
/usr
4 matches
Mail list logo
