Update: here's a related IRC discussion from today prompted by #870472. Apologies for the lack of wrapping.
21:52 < ntyni> Dom: did you see #870472 ? can't recall if dropping prename was intentional or not 21:52 -zwiebelbot:#debian-perl- Debian#870472: rename: Please provide 'prename' as well as 'rename' - https://bugs.debian.org/870472 21:53 < ntyni> seems like a problem if we want to drop the src:perl version for buster 22:43 < Dom> hmm, seems I need to revive my old memories for this one 22:48 < Dom> isn't the problem there that the alternatives have gone wrong? 22:49 < Dom> huh, no 22:49 < Dom> there is no alternative for prename 22:49 < Dom> this is all wrong 22:49 < ntyni> right, I think we forgot about it 22:50 * Dom reads https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=735134 22:50 -zwiebelbot:#debian-perl- Debian#735134: perl: rename(1) is ancient - https://bugs.debian.org/735134 22:53 < Dom> prename must have been issuing that warning for ages, right? 22:54 < Dom> "Additionally, if you are currently using 'prename', please 22:54 < Dom> use 'rename' (which is handled by the alternatives mechanism) or 22:54 < Dom> file-rename, which is the new implementation." 22:54 < ntyni> 5.24.1~rc3-1 I guess 22:54 < Dom> that is what was sent to maintainres 22:54 < Dom> so I think the current situation is correct, and the new bugreporter must be misrembering the advice to start using prename 22:54 < Dom> (or that advice was much older advice) 22:55 < ntyni> I suspect the latter 22:56 < Dom> We could turn prename into an alternative too, it's just work 22:56 < Dom> not sure if it's worth it or not 22:56 < Dom> and would delay us another release, Ithink 22:57 < ntyni> yes, that was my main worry 22:58 < ntyni> no strong opinion on whether we should do it or not 22:59 < Dom> I think given it's been like this for around a year before someone notice (or at least filed a bug), I'd prefer to stick to our previously-announced course, and finally close #735134 23:01 < ntyni> do you mean removing /usr/bin/prename altogether, or moving it in the rename package now without an overlapping transition period? 23:02 < Dom> I mean removing prename altogehter 23:03 < Dom> which is after all what the deprecation warning says will happen 23:03 < Dom> oh hang on, the deprecation message also says that the rename package will provide 'the same command' 23:03 < Dom> ugh 23:03 < ntyni> yes, was just about to point that out 23:04 < Dom> is moving it to the rename package without alternatives good enough? 23:05 < ntyni> I suppose yes 23:05 < Dom> I guess it would need a simultaneous upload 23:05 < ntyni> but I think I'd like a test rebuild + bugs 23:06 < ntyni> yes on simultaneousness (if that is a word) 23:06 < Dom> simultaneity 23:06 < ntyni> thanks 23:08 < ntyni> I think rename would need to Replace perl (<< something) for the overwriting, and Depend on perl perl (>= something) so that installing and then removing rename on an older perl will not lose prename prematurely 23:09 < Dom> yeah. 23:09 < Dom> Or we could just repeat the recipe we already played out for the rename command 23:10 < Dom> *headdesk* so frustrating 23:10 < Dom> and so trivial 23:10 < ntyni> indeed 23:12 < ntyni> the alternatives were needed because we wanted the /usr/bin/rename versions to be coinstallable 23:12 < ntyni> if we don't want that for /usr/bin/prename I guess we can do without alternatives 23:12 < ntyni> and we only want it if we want to keep prename for another release 23:13 < Dom> oh, I remember now 23:13 < Dom> we harnessed an already-existing alternative for rename that has been in perl since 2005 23:13 < Dom> I think your plan is better 23:13 < ntyni> right; /usr/bin/rename was historically an alternative with a brief coexistence in util-linux 23:13 < Dom> with Replaces: 23:21 < ntyni> Dom: ok with me copy-pasting this discussion to #735134 so we don't forget? 23:21 -zwiebelbot:#debian-perl- Debian#735134: perl: rename(1) is ancient - https://bugs.debian.org/735134 23:22 < Dom> sure. -- Niko Tyni nt...@debian.org
