18:04:18 #startmeeting 18:04:18 Meeting started Fri Jan 14 18:04:18 2022 UTC. The chair is spwhitton. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 18:04:18 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. 18:04:21 #topic Roll call 18:04:23 Sean Whitton 18:04:27 Christoph Berg 18:04:27 Niko Tyni 18:04:42 Elana Hashman 18:05:59 spwhitton: I have to drop at 30 past 18:06:17 https://jitsi.debian.social/TechnicalCommittee 18:06:20 (ctte membres only plz) 18:06:55 Apologies received from Gunnar 18:08:05 #action spwhitton to start two votes on candidates 18:08:36 #action spwhitton to write to other candidates 18:10:08 #action spwhitton update appointment_of_the_chair.md with the "other" convention about not resinging right before new appointments 18:12:13 #topic Bug#1003653 Revision of removal of rename.ul from package util-linux 18:13:36 [switching to IRC] 18:14:11 so about rename.ul and alternatives 18:14:15 there is: rename - Perl extension for renaming multiple files 18:14:45 right, the Perl one was the first to grab /usr/bin/rename back in 1999 or something like that 18:15:03 then other distributions picked up the util-linux version which is mostly incompatible 18:15:32 dropping a utility like that was certainly not expected, but otoh, what is a rename utility doing in util-linux which is supposed to contain things like "mount"? 18:15:34 in ca. 2004 there was a request to switch and a brief setup with update-alternatives which was reverted quite quickly because of the incompatibility 18:15:56 and the alternatives system was pretty much obsoleted after that but remained in place 18:16:25 later in 2015 or something like that we transitioned the Perl rename thing to src:rename and used the existing alternatives system for that 18:16:43 I can dig up bug numbers later but that's pretty much how I recall things 18:17:00 so util-linux's binary was always called "rename.ul" only? 18:17:02 of course all that history does not matter very much for the actual issue we're asked to rule on 18:17:04 Myon: i guess if you wrote a script for another distro and then wanted to use it on Debian, it would be nice to have it there, even if under a diff name 18:17:15 spwhitton: ack 18:17:25 yeah I think it's always been rename.ul in Debian except for a brief period with it registering an alternative 18:18:02 the perl rename still has 49k installations: https://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=rename 18:18:39 hmm. I am not sure that the util-linux maintainer has even been asked to reconsider the removal. 18:18:54 on a green field, the ideal solution would be to have util-linux ship the binary as "rename" to be compatible with the rest of the world 18:19:08 #966468 18:19:09 but in reality, we break the perl-rename users 18:19:23 ah thanks 18:19:33 from what I saw, the maintainer was changing 18:19:35 oh, right, that was in the tech-ctte bug, I recall now. 18:19:38 sure, ideally util-linux would get /usr/bin/rename but nobody wanted to break existing usage 18:19:55 ah was removing rename.ul, but the "wontfix" is from zeha 18:20:38 #304705 has most of the history fwiw 18:20:40 so I think the "wontfix" is just there because the new maintainer didn't want to concern themselves with whatever the previous maintainer did (enotime, they don't know, or something) 18:21:08 we should probably start by asking zeha about that 18:21:13 okay. so we should probably just ask the maintainer, as the ctte, what their reasons were, and whether they would reconsider in light of the various points that have been raised. 18:21:22 they might just say "okay I'll put it back". 18:21:30 +1 18:21:33 yes 18:21:35 right, but that won't fix bullseye 18:21:59 the complaint is coming very late 18:22:20 yeah. but the release team would be more likely to consider a fix in bullseye if we get it reverted in stable, I would guess (not to say a revert in unstable is a prerequisite to them doing that) 18:22:26 in unstable* 18:22:40 do we have a volunteer to write to the maintainer, CCing our bug? 18:22:46 I can do that 18:22:51 great, ty 18:23:07 #action Myon to write to util-linux new maintainer based on meeting discussion, CCing the TC bug 18:23:16 (while I'm digging, #439935 is about the incompatibility with the alternatives system) 18:23:26 do we have any ideas of other solutions besides "put it back and be done"? 18:23:49 like actually improving the mismatch with other util-linux users? 18:24:20 (but I guess we are mostly stuck with the historical names) 18:24:27 yeah I suspected the wontfix might have been because of a long-standing annoyance with the name clash 18:24:35 but if there's been a maintainer change recently then maybe not 18:24:35 I mean, someone could try to make an argument that the interface isn't as incompatible as has been thought 18:24:47 and someone might ask the TC to assess that, if agreement was not forthcoming. 18:25:03 ntyni: do you have experience with that? 18:25:35 do other distros ship the perl rename? 18:25:35 the util-linux version uses something like shell wildcards to determine the name transformations while the Perl one is more like regexps 18:25:51 I think they are pretty much incompatible for anything nontrivial unfortunately 18:25:56 ok 18:26:28 ok maybe just putting it back under the .ul name is just fine then 18:26:37 yeah, it does seem that way. 18:26:44 alright, as ehashman has to leave, can we do any other business? 18:26:49 yeah it's worked for 20+ years 18:27:07 ack 18:27:19 no other business from me 18:27:22 #topic Any Other Business 18:27:37 I've set a reminder to resign as chair and to send a poll for february's meeting time; both are dependent on the DPL 18:28:11 and us voting first I guess? 18:28:14 right yeah 18:28:50 nothing from me 18:28:58 ehashman: anything from you? 18:30:19 well, her other thing has started now, I guess, so thanks everyone! 18:30:21 #endmeeting