> > There are several differences, though: patmv has logic to handle > > recursive renames in an intelligent way and has options for > > manipulating the whole path or the last component as an option. In my > > opinion, it also handles file existence cases more robustly and > > generates more useful output. > > Your examples are persuasive that patmv has some advantages over Perl's > rename. I wonder whether it might be worthwhile to see if patmv could > replace rename in the perl package, though, since it appears to be > intended for an identical purpose. > > I suppose on the other hand people might be more aware that the program > exists at all by virtue of a separate package.
I would prefer it to be a separate package. I've released it from my personal software website and have also made a Red Hat package (for my less enlightened friends have haven't switched yet ;-]). Also, "rename" isn't actually part of the upstream Perl package -- it's added in Debian by the patch. In fact, Red Hat distributions also have a "rename" command that does something different. There's no real reason why patmv should be part of Perl either. Although it was definitely inspired by a Perl example, it has, in my opinion, enough functionality to be a separate package in its own right (in addition to the good point you make about awareness). Also, by having it be a separate package, enhancements or bug fixes can be made without having to re-release Perl. (I have every intention of becoming a DD, though I know this takes some time.) Although I failed to mention this in my initial post, the thing that pushed me over the edge and made me decide to submit this package for sponsorship was the recent inclusion of the "renameutils" package, which I learned about in the Debian Weekly News[1] new package list. 1. http://www.debian.org/News/weekly/2004/16/ I feel that patmv is no more special-purpose than renameutils (which is in its own package) and serves a different cross section of the Debian user community. > I might be willing to sponsor it; let me think about it a bit. I appreciate your consideration. So that I don't have to come across as nagging, can you give me some kind of timeframe within which you expect to respond? If I don't hear anything within that timeframe, I'll post a second RFS request. :-) Thanks! -- Jay Berkenbilt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.ql.org/q/
