Re: makeicecat fails for a miscalculation of the version of rename

[chippy]

> i will try to explain - this issue is complicated on both ends
> 
> 
> On Sun, 22 Jan 2023 15:30:44 +0100 chippy wrote:
> > Arch maintains Icecat
> 
> to be clear, arch does not maintain an icecat package - that is
> the AUR - everything on the AUR is maintained by arch users
> 
> 
> On Sun, 22 Jan 2023 15:30:44 +0100 chippy wrote:
> > This works on Debian but unfortunately not on a live instance of
> Arch
> > (with perl-rename installed with pacman) where --nofullpath is an
> > unrecognized option.
> 
> yes, that is known - it is the only reason why the check was
> added; and why the error message specifies to use Parabola's
> 'perl-file-rename' package
> 
> the suggestion is possible; but i would not bother to support
> the arch variant of perl-rename - it is non-standard; and only
> arch has it - upstreams generally should not try so hard to
> support specific opinionated downstreams - likewise, it would
> have been cleaner for the AUR packager, to simply require
> Parabola's 'perl-file-rename' package, rather than patching
> the upstream build script to support arch
> 
> i could have implemented what you are suggesting originally,
> but chose not to - the current implementation is cleaner - the
> cost is but a minor nuisance, which only affects those who
> package icecat for arch-like distros - AFAIK, that is exactly
> two people
> 
> instead, i wrote to the arch packager, requesting to change the
> non-standard and unmaintained variant to the standard maintained
> variant - if that happens, parabola could drop the extra
> package, and gnuzilla could safely delete the check for the
> non-standard variant; because probably, no one would ever be
> using it - ie: generally, a solution which allows you to delete
> code, is the better than one that entails adding new code
> 
> lastly, there is no reason why any downstrem should ever need to
> run `makeicecat` - up until a few years ago, gnuzilla always
> published versioned source-balls for downstreams (AFAIK, GNU
> requires all GNU projects to do so) - ive assumed all along,
> that the habit of maintaining the project only as a VCS, was
> temporary - that is another reason why it made little sense to
> support arch users - if gnuzilla was still publishing
> source-balls, no one would have ever noticed this bug; because
> that code which checks for arch's incompatible `rename`, would
> never have been written

Thank you for the clear explanation, I tried to express a similar doubt
by saying "it would add too much specificity". 

Again, thanks
Chippy