Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Vincent Bernat <ber...@debian.org> (14/11/2011):
>> See how communities may react to this. Ruby community does not like our
>> packaging just because we enforce stability over freshness. What would
>> think node.js community if we are using /usr/bin/nodejs instead of
>> /usr/bin/node. Debian would be listed as a black sheep in every FAQ or
>> tutorial and users will be invited to just install some non official
>> package or use the source.
>
> Oh noes!!!!1111oneoneoneeleven
Or to put it another way, one could kindly explain to such people that
(1) the node.js packaging in unstable or experimental is reasonably up to
date (if that is true --- I just don't know, but it presumably could
be easily could be made to be so if someone wants to do that)
(2) faced with a diverse userbase that was using the "node" command for
two different purposes, Debian is doing the only thing it can do to
make scripts reliable: rename both. As a nice side-effect, we get a
simple, Google-able name for the tool. People unhappy with the
divergence from upstream can do one of two things:
(a) install a /usr/local/bin/node -> ../../bin/nodejs symlink locally,
by running the following handy install-nodejs-symlink script
(b) work with upstream to provide the interpreter under both names,
so scripts can use "#!/usr/bin/env nodejs" to be self-documenting
and work reliably everywhere
(By the way, most of the description under (2) might apply to the ham
radio tool, too. In other words, none of this seems particularly unique
to interpreted languages.)
--
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/20111114214013.ga3...@elie.hsd1.il.comcast.net
