On Tue, 14 Jan 2014, Niko Tyni wrote: > I note that we really ship the script as /usr/bin/prename and manage > /usr/bin/rename with the alternatives system. This was introduced due > to #304705 but turned out to be completely useless: the intention was > to offer the choice of /usr/bin/rename.ul from util-linux, but that > didn't work out because the command line syntax is incompatible (see > #439935).
So long as the base command line syntax is compatible, then there isn't really a problem with using alternatives to support them both. [I have to admit that my advice in #304705 to support alternatives was naïve, as alternatives need to share a common command line syntax.] > So the /usr/bin/rename syntax we've ended up with is very Perl specific > and I think we're stuck with that. I'm Cc'ing Don Armstrong though, > as he suggested using the alternatives system in #304705 and may have > something to add. > > I suggest something like > > - package libfile-rename-perl > - make it supply a better /usr/bin/rename with the alternatives system > - make the old one from the perl package issue warnings, Recommend > libfile-rename-perl for one release cycle I don't know if this is actually necessary. We could just have perl depend on libfile-rename-perl once we remove debian/rename. Or just keep rename as it is currently. But I'm OK with either option so long as /usr/bin/rename keeps the same syntax. -- Don Armstrong http://www.donarmstrong.com I'm So Meta, Even This Acronym -- xkcd http://xkcd.com/917/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
