Hi, I'd like to echo Stuart Prescott in #706043, and Simon McVittie on -devel¹: I don't normally complain about archive bloat too much but in this case re-name looks very superfluous.
I'm also not clear on why you've renamed the upstream name from rename to re-name. You claim in README.Source: > It is a generical name and was modified to re-name to be introduced in > Debian. "rename" is not a current package name, re-name is just as generic with the added disadvantage that it is not the upstream name. Although I suppose alternatives would not be appropriate for /usr/bin/rename, since the calling syntax is completely different to prename (not sure which other packages provide a /usr/bin/rename alternative), so you're left to choose which is more appealing: upstream name:debian package or debian package:binary name. As an irrelevant side-note it's nice to see a debian/rules file that adds --parallel to dh(1) calls. ¹http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2013/04/msg00690.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
