Hi,
I've prepared a patch for the current issue. See the attached proposed
NMU diff. I've limited it to minimal changes.
Is this something the technical committee finds acceptable?
Ansgar
From 2569c0aca93f2f0d7f5521c3158ed077f206ce0a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Ansgar
Date: Sat, 9 Apr 202
On Fri, Apr 08, 2022 at 12:07:25PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Hello Wouter,
>
> On Fri 08 Apr 2022 at 09:36AM +02, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>
> > Given that, in case the dpkg maintainer chooses to remain silent
> > again, I believe the only way forward is for the TC to recommend a GR
> > under §4
On Sat, 2022-04-09 at 14:52 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On a side note, the dpkg maintainer replied to my message, dropping
> the -ctte Cc, wherein he claims that the warning has been removed:
>
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-dpkg/2022/04/msg7.html
So one of the statements there is:
|
Hello Christoph,
* Christoph Berg [220407 15:11]:
> Re: Chris Hofstaedtler
> > B) Finish the very old migration. Have util-linux(-extra) ship
> >/usr/bin/rename; perl rename can be prename/file-rename as today,
> >but would need to drop the update-alternatives symlink; versioned
> >Co
Hi,
On 09/04/2022 14:59, Chris Hofstaedtler wrote:
I was not planning on doing that: stable already does not have
/usr/bin/rename.ul.
People were asking for it to be restored before the stable release,
though, I think? #966468 was opened against version 2.36-1 back in July
2020.
Given re
Hello,
On Sat 09 Apr 2022 at 02:52pm +02, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On a side note, the dpkg maintainer replied to my message, dropping the
> -ctte Cc, wherein he claims that the warning has been removed:
Yes, it has been removed for some days now -- sorry, thought that was
more widely known.
>
* Matthew Vernon [220409 16:12]:
> On 09/04/2022 14:59, Chris Hofstaedtler wrote:
[..]
> > I know we all want this TC issue to be resolved. But I do not want
> > to end up shipping rename.ul indefinitely.
>
> I'm still not sure what harm occurs from doing so?
I gave some technical reasons why I
Hi Dom and Chris,
Chris proposes to transition /usr/bin/rename from the perl API to the
util-linux API.
On Thu, Apr 07, 2022 at 01:04:54PM +0200, Chris Hofstaedtler wrote:
> I see two clear options:
[...]
> B) Finish the very old migration. Have util-linux(-extra) ship
>/usr/bin/rename; per
Hello,
On Sat 09 Apr 2022 at 11:50am +02, Ansgar wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've prepared a patch for the current issue. See the attached proposed
> NMU diff. I've limited it to minimal changes.
I don't understand. The warning is already no longer emitted on Debian?
--
Sean Whitton
On Sat, 2022-04-09 at 10:59 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Sat 09 Apr 2022 at 11:50am +02, Ansgar wrote:
> > I've prepared a patch for the current issue. See the attached proposed
> > NMU diff. I've limited it to minimal changes.
>
> I don't understand. The warning is already no longer emitted
On Sat, 2022-04-09 at 11:01 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Okay I see.
>
> To answer your question, then, the ctte has not even discussed the
> relevance of warnings to derivatives.
Well, the ctte has mostly discussed things in private. I have no idea
and it's not possible to comment on what the ct
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
> r
12 matches
Mail list logo
