-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160 Well and I thought the general naming convention of cpan modules would be to prefix them with perl- anyway; isn't that the case? If that is so, then perl-rename would make more sense to me.
But then again, I'm sorta new around these parts <smile>. On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 04:50:06PM +0100, Sebastian Schwarz wrote: > On 2009-12-13 at 23:43 -0500, Ranguvar wrote: > > I'm thinking I should advise the 'perl-rename' maintainer to take over > > 'prename' with their PKGBUILD, and then delete 'perl-rename', does > > anyone not agree? > > As the maintainer of perl-rename let me defend myself. :) > > On 2009-12-15 at 17:11 +0100, Xyne wrote: > > Are they really the same? > > No, they aren't. They are both based on the same script by Larry > Wall and therefore are quite similar. However (perl-)rename on CPAN > is more up-to-date and has some additional functionality and command > line options. From what I can see prename is only distributed with > Debian's Perl package and doesn't have a CPAN/web presence on its own. > > The original maintainer of prename probably chose the name "prename" > in order to avoid name clashes with /usr/bin/rename from util-linux-ng. > > Nevertheless I adopted and updated prename to Debian's newest version. > But as perl-rename provides all of prename's functionality and more > and is better maintained I suggest deleting prename. I don't care so > much about the votes but I for my part prefer the name "perl-rename" > as it is more unambiguous than "prename". Unfortunately "rename" > was already taken. :) > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iEYEAREDAAYFAkss4AsACgkQWSjv55S0LfERqACgosvwFKoU6D1fRU/X5quchzfF 2qgAoPkawmlb244iR2eA0y38gz59eHYj =0g3a -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
