That won't help.  There are two files "version" & "package" in the mcz that know what the package is really called.  If you write a tool to rewrite those u may get lucky but easier is to rename in the Monticello browser or write a script to do the same in the image.

Eliot (phone)

On Dec 10, 2013, at 12:10 PM, Frank Shearar <frank.shearar at gmail.com> wrote:

> n 10 December 2013 00:21, Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> PS -- Since it was for aesthetic reasons, it would be better and more
>>>> consistent if it were named "ToolBuilder-Tests" instead of
>>>> "ToolBuilderTests".
>>> 
>>> Sure, but then Monticello forces you to have as many packages as there are
>>> ToolBuilder-Foo thingies, right?  That's ok for ToolBuilder, but for Tools
>> 
>> I was talking about ToolBuilder-*, not Tools.  The other packages in
>> the family are
>> 
>>  ToolBuilder-Morphic
>>  ToolBuilder-MVC
>>  ToolBuilder-SUnit
>> 
>> Whoa!  ALL of which have no definitions!  Frank is this something you
>> modularized out?  So we should somehow remove these WorkingCopy's from
>> the trunk image.  Via some postscript perhaps?
> 
> Nah, I just did the wrong thing. Worse, I even paused to think about
> the package name before doing the wrong thing. The question is: how to
> rename the package? It's trivial to rename the package through the UI.
> But now I have a ToolBuilderTests-fbs.2. Is the right thing to do the
> following?:
> * rename the mcz to ToolBuilder-Tests-fbs.2
> * copy that to trunk
> * change the config map to reference this instead of ToolBuilderTests-fbs.1
> 
> frank
>