Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Bug#982944: rename.ul was arbitrarily removed from util-linux citing non-existent policy
129 views
Skip to first unread message
Scott Mcdermott
Feb 16, 2021, 11:30:03 PM2/16/21
to
Package: util-linux
Version: 2.36.1-7
In bug #926637 rename.ul was removed as an
alternative for /usr/bin/rename, citing "debian-policy"
and because the implementations "cannot be used
interchangeably."
After using the util-linux 'rename' for at least a decade,
maybe even two, I find this extremely frustrating, I
have scripts that rely on this, provisioning that sets
this alternative up on all machines, and have relied on
this for many years.
There is no such Policy I can find after searching all
occurrences of the word "alternative" in the current
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/policy.pdf
and indeed this seems to be the exact purpose of the
alternative mechanism. There are many examples of
alternatives that provide the same command name
but use different command-line interfaces, such as
/usr/bin/mail, /usr/bin/vi, /usr/bin/www-browser (are
we going to say firefox and chromium have the same
cli?), /usr/bin/sensible-editor, the list goes on and on.
Please add rename.ul back and let those of us that
want it as 'rename' to keep it. This was an arbitrary
decision from On High, pointing at non-existent policy
and in fact countermands the exact stated purpose
of the alternatives mechanism, directly from the
debian-policy manual:
"When several packages all provide different versions
of the same program or file it is useful to have the system
select a default, but to allow the system administrator to
change it and have their decisions respected. For example,
there are several versions of the vi editor, and there is no
reason to prevent all of them from being installed at once,
each under their own name (nvi, vim or whatever).
Nevertheless it is desirable to have the name vi refer to
something, at least by default."
Of course not all versions of Vi have the same CLI. Just
because some programs try to respect one in different
implementations (or a subset), such as /usr/lib/sendmail,
does not mean that all Alternatives are required to do
that, it doesn't make any sense at all. Instead of "allowing
the system administrator to ... have their decision respected"
this arbitrary change has taken place with no authority given
to the system administrator and defying the purpose of the
alternatives system and Debian Policy.
Please add it back, it is an Alternative exactly like they are
designed to be used, as specified in Debian Policy, and has
existed for many years. Thanks.
Version: 2.36.1-7
In bug #926637 rename.ul was removed as an
alternative for /usr/bin/rename, citing "debian-policy"
and because the implementations "cannot be used
interchangeably."
After using the util-linux 'rename' for at least a decade,
maybe even two, I find this extremely frustrating, I
have scripts that rely on this, provisioning that sets
this alternative up on all machines, and have relied on
this for many years.
There is no such Policy I can find after searching all
occurrences of the word "alternative" in the current
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/policy.pdf
and indeed this seems to be the exact purpose of the
alternative mechanism. There are many examples of
alternatives that provide the same command name
but use different command-line interfaces, such as
/usr/bin/mail, /usr/bin/vi, /usr/bin/www-browser (are
we going to say firefox and chromium have the same
cli?), /usr/bin/sensible-editor, the list goes on and on.
Please add rename.ul back and let those of us that
want it as 'rename' to keep it. This was an arbitrary
decision from On High, pointing at non-existent policy
and in fact countermands the exact stated purpose
of the alternatives mechanism, directly from the
debian-policy manual:
"When several packages all provide different versions
of the same program or file it is useful to have the system
select a default, but to allow the system administrator to
change it and have their decisions respected. For example,
there are several versions of the vi editor, and there is no
reason to prevent all of them from being installed at once,
each under their own name (nvi, vim or whatever).
Nevertheless it is desirable to have the name vi refer to
something, at least by default."
Of course not all versions of Vi have the same CLI. Just
because some programs try to respect one in different
implementations (or a subset), such as /usr/lib/sendmail,
does not mean that all Alternatives are required to do
that, it doesn't make any sense at all. Instead of "allowing
the system administrator to ... have their decision respected"
this arbitrary change has taken place with no authority given
to the system administrator and defying the purpose of the
alternatives system and Debian Policy.
Please add it back, it is an Alternative exactly like they are
designed to be used, as specified in Debian Policy, and has
existed for many years. Thanks.
Scott Mcdermott
Feb 18, 2021, 4:10:04 PM2/18/21
to
Incidentally, RedHat has long had rename from util-linux as
/usr/bin/rename. So that's yet another reason to use an Alternative:
so people with heterogeneous farms can expect the same binary path
to behave the same way regardless of which system they're logged
into. This should be an administrator decision.
This Alternative was added in 2007 with bug 439647 and I can't
fathom the reason it was removed 14 years later because
someone doesn't like its CLI. After all that's the point of Alternatives.
/usr/bin/rename. So that's yet another reason to use an Alternative:
so people with heterogeneous farms can expect the same binary path
to behave the same way regardless of which system they're logged
into. This should be an administrator decision.
This Alternative was added in 2007 with bug 439647 and I can't
fathom the reason it was removed 14 years later because
someone doesn't like its CLI. After all that's the point of Alternatives.
Adam Conrad
Feb 18, 2021, 5:00:04 PM2/18/21
to
Unsubscribe
Lucas Sandery
Feb 21, 2021, 9:10:03 PM2/21/21
to
I wrote about this over at
http://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=148938
Similar bug #966468 has been closed as WONTFIX by the same maintainer
who removed it, without comment, and seemingly without any oversight.
I can understand the argument about excluding it from update
alternatives, I don't necessarily agree but at least there was a
workaround. However, It's removal, is illogical. It was already suffixed
to avoid conflicts, people are using it. Can a maintainer please provide
a very good reason for this removal, or just put it back?
Thanks,
Lucas.
http://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=148938
Similar bug #966468 has been closed as WONTFIX by the same maintainer
who removed it, without comment, and seemingly without any oversight.
I can understand the argument about excluding it from update
alternatives, I don't necessarily agree but at least there was a
workaround. However, It's removal, is illogical. It was already suffixed
to avoid conflicts, people are using it. Can a maintainer please provide
a very good reason for this removal, or just put it back?
Thanks,
Lucas.
Dirk Kostrewa
Nov 12, 2021, 5:06:32 AM11/12/21
to
After changing the Linux distribution from CentOS to Debian "Bullseye"
at an institute of the University of Munich, the removal of rename.ul
from util-linux in Debian "Bullseye" broke one of our scripts used in a
scientific workflow in research. I can't believe that this highly
versatile and simple-to-use tool which is part of the public software at
kernel.org (https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/utils/util-linux/
<https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/utils/util-linux/>) was arbitrarily
removed by a single person's decision.
One of the strengths of Linux is the freedom of software choice. Please,
do not cut this freedom without very good reason!
Could you please revert this decision and make rename.ul available in
util-linux, again?
If not, is there a way to escalate this issue in Debian's package
decision hierarchy?
Regards,
Dirk.
at an institute of the University of Munich, the removal of rename.ul
from util-linux in Debian "Bullseye" broke one of our scripts used in a
scientific workflow in research. I can't believe that this highly
versatile and simple-to-use tool which is part of the public software at
kernel.org (https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/utils/util-linux/
<https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/utils/util-linux/>) was arbitrarily
removed by a single person's decision.
One of the strengths of Linux is the freedom of software choice. Please,
do not cut this freedom without very good reason!
Could you please revert this decision and make rename.ul available in
util-linux, again?
If not, is there a way to escalate this issue in Debian's package
decision hierarchy?
Regards,
Dirk.
Dirk Kostrewa
Jan 24, 2022, 8:10:04 AM1/24/22
to
Meanwhile, I have asked the technical committee for a revision of the
removal of rename.ul from the util-linux package in Debian bug report
#1003653 (https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1003653).
Dirk.
removal of rename.ul from the util-linux package in Debian bug report
#1003653 (https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1003653).
Dirk.
0 new messages