]] Tollef Fog Heen > ]] Margarita Manterola > > > This is still true today. However, 5 years after the initial decision, the > > use > > of Node.js has kept growing to the point that it is by far the most expected > > meaning of the word "node" in the IT context. > > > > This, compounded with the fact that the old node will be gone in stretch, > > means > > that it makes sense for nodejs to become node. > > I think it's unfortunate that upstream chose node rather than nodejs as > the binary name, but think I think we should allow nodejs to use the > node binary name.
I think we need a resolution for this. A first draft is below, feedback on wording and content appreciated. === DRAFT Resolution === The Technical Committee recognises that circumstances change in ways that make previous resolution no longer appropriate. In 2012, it was resolved that the nodejs package should not provide /usr/bin/node due to the historical conflict with the ax25-node package. Node.js is still quite popular and the ax25-node package is no longer in the stable, testing or unstable so the requirement for nodejs to not provide /usr/bin/node no longer applies. The Committee therefore resolves that: 1. The CTTE decision in from 2012-07-12 in bug #614907 is repealed. 2. The nodejs package shall be free to provide /usr/bin/node. 3. Other packages in the archive are free to depend on the nodejs package and use /usr/bin/node. === End DRAFT Resolution === Should we say something about packages being allowed to depend on nodejs-legacy for backports? -- Tollef Fog Heen UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are
