Bug#738135: libfile-rename-perl: rename package to 'rename'

[Dominic Hargreaves]

Source: libfile-rename-perl
Version: 0.20-1
Severity: wishlist
Owner: dom at earth.li

On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 11:07:56PM +0000, Dominic Hargreaves wrote in #735134:
> On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 09:28:03AM +0000, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> > Hi Gregor,
> > 
> > On Sun, Feb 02, 2014 at 07:31:02PM +0100, gregor herrmann wrote:
> > > It's the package for the CPAN File::Rename distribution, and
> > > therefore named accordingly to
> > > https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/perl-policy/ch-module_packages.html#s-package_names
> > > in Debian.
> > 
> > Thanks for pointing me at that. It seems to me this makes sense for
> > libraries but not for end-user binaries.
> >  
> > > (Cf. also
> > > http://pkg-perl.alioth.debian.org/policy.html#package_naming_policy )
> > 
> > This seems to agree since it suggests end-user binary packages should
> > not follow the libfoo-bar-perl scheme.
> > 
> > [ as a side-note, if the perl group are following the latter, then
> >   a minor-severity bug against policy to update the former to reflect
> >   that practise sounds like it might be in order. I'll do this unless
> >   anyone objects. ]
> > 
> > I guess there are common situations where you have both an end-user
> > binary and a perl module in the same source, and you might not want
> > to split that into two binary packages (if they're very small or 
> > something), however that doesn't appear to be the case here.
> 
> Yeah, I think I agree that this package should be named 'rename' since
> it will be predominantly used as an standalone utility rather than
> library. (I'm assuming noone is going to object to such a generic name).
> I'll file a new bug for that.

Here it is.

Dominic.