Hi,
I am the current src:util-linux maintainer and have become aware of
this bug by pure coincidence.
* Christoph Berg [220121 16:28]:
> > A user requested in Debian bug report #926637
> > (https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=926637) to include
> > rename.ul in Debian's alternative
Chris Hofstaedtler writes:
> If the util-linux rename should be made easier to use, then it should
> become the one and only provider of /usr/bin/rename, and it should not
> be in an essential package.
The two programs are very, very different, and I suspect the util-linux
version would not be s
* Russ Allbery [220121 18:11]:
> Chris Hofstaedtler writes:
>
> > If the util-linux rename should be made easier to use, then it should
> > become the one and only provider of /usr/bin/rename, and it should not
> > be in an essential package.
>
> The two programs are very, very different, and I
On Sat, 22 Jan 2022, Chris Hofstaedtler wrote:
> * Russ Allbery [220121 18:11]:
> > Chris Hofstaedtler writes:
> >
> > > If the util-linux rename should be made easier to use, then it should
> > > become the one and only provider of /usr/bin/rename, and it should not
> > > be in an essential pac
4 matches
Mail list logo
