On Tue, Nov 08, 2011 at 07:16:35AM +1100, Damien Gardner Jnr wrote: > > I have to pop my head up from my lurker-hole here, and say that I'm a more > than a little confused, why a 15 year old application should change its name > at all? Even the Node.js wiki makes it clear that the application should be > called Node.js 'to disambiguate it from other nodes' - it sounds like the > developers are being proactive in notifying users that they picked a name > which conflicts with other packages? >
You would think there would be some weight given to the length of time a binary has been in the project, but there is not. First come, first served does not apply according to Debian Policy. > I don't know about others, but I'm not overly keen on the idea of > reconfiguring machines which were installed last century, because a program > which appeared in the last two years has the same name.. If you think about > it, node.js is *much* more 'able' to change the name of its binary - it still > has an actively developed community! - I don't know about other folk, but I > find it pretty darned hard to find much 'current' documentation about a lot > of the older x.25 & bbs stuff I have running on some of my older boxen - one > of my BBS packages doesn't even appear in a google search anymore (god help > me if the wrapper I setup in 2001 to make it telnet-accessible as well as > dial-in, ever breaks ;) ) I hope to avoid any issues with breaking old boxes with the eventual resolution of the issue. > > Although I'm curious why both packages can't just shove a Conflicts: in for > each other, and be done with it? Or just leave it as is, since they're in > different directories, provided a nice big must-click-ok dialog comes up > during install/upgrade to notify the user of the change? From the AX.25 > side, and probably at least partly from the Node.js side, the users are going > to be fairly cluey, if not accomplished hackerers - having multiple binaries > of the same name, in different directories in the path is nothing new (hell, > we used to rely on it on some of our hosting servers - things like reboot, > shutdown, etc were wrappered with scripts in higher-preferenced directories > from the PATH, to make sure accidental reboots, shutdowns, rm's etc, couldn't > happen, as explicit paths had to be used.. As for scripts etc, well, if > you're not specifying the absolute path to any binary you're calling, you're > just asking for trouble anyway! > The issue is one of following policy. Debian policy doesn't allow such a "resolution" to this issue. Consensus on which must change, or both must change are the only allowed outcomes. 73, Pat -- Patrick Ouellette p...@flying-gecko.net ne4po (at) arrl (dot) net Amateur Radio: NE4PO What kind of change have you been in the world today? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20111108194814.gd30...@flying-gecko.net
