* Sean Whitton <[email protected]> [220124 05:56]: > On Sun 23 Jan 2022 at 10:27PM +01, Christoph Berg wrote: > > Re: Sean Whitton > >> On Sun 23 Jan 2022 at 10:04PM +01, Chris Hofstaedtler wrote: > >> > I guess the best thing would be to introduce a new binary package, > >> > but I am out of ideas on naming it. Open for ideas here. > >> > >> util-linux-extra? > > > > If it's about rename only, "rename-ul" or even "rename.ul"? > > > > I guess it should also contain the historical name as a symlink. > > > > Christoph > > Well, Chris mentioned wanting to transition some other things out of the > essential package in addition to this one. Also, the ftp team would not > love the idea of a single-script package.
I think this will mostly depend on what src:rename will/should do (+CC: Debian Perl Group, Dominic Hargreaves). For context, the idea is that /usr/bin/rename should become src:util-linux' rename implementation. As was found in the past, this is not possible using alternatives. As the util-linux maintainer, I would also prefer to not having alternatives. If the rename binary package drops /usr/bin/rename, rename.ul(*) can start installing that, and conflict on old versions of rename. Or, to make this transition more clear to users: - src:rename could drop /usr/bin/rename AND rename its binary package to file-rename (?) or prename (?) - rename.ul could Conflict: rename indefinitely Chris (*) "working title"
