Re: Chris Hofstaedtler > I see two clear options: Hi Chris,
thanks for the prompt feedback! > A) Keep the status quo ("rename is not part of Debians util-linux"). > Very clear, very simple, no work. But that's not what users want, there have been several requests to have rename reintroduced. > 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 > Conflicts/Provides/Replaces would probably be needed. I would also > suggest having no binary package ship /usr/bin/rename for one > release. What name would you use in util-linux-extra for the time of the one release where no package ships /usr/bin/rename? /usr/bin/rename.ul seems most sensible to me here, which would also match the status before starting a migration. > Personally I am leaning towards option A) - mostly because we > are/were already spending a lot more time on mails than what I think > the work of option B) would entail. Also I believe the CTTE does not > want to do any of this fine grainted technical detail design work. We don't want to dictate *how* this should be resolved, but we are interested in *having* it resolved, and A) isn't that. To me, the plausible way forward here seems to be this: * Reintroduce it as /usr/bin/rename.ul in util-linux-extra * Have u-l-e be pseudo-essential for one release * At this point the TC issue is resolved * Potentially work with the perl-rename maintainers to transition to a different layout of the two utilities. That's then indeed outside the scope of the TC. Christoph