Alex Pennace wrote: > Clearly, the nodejs community would not be pleased. On the other hand, > the AX25 community would not be pleased about being forced to rename > if it fell on them. So the real question is which community should > bear the costs of resolving this conflict? > > At this stage, it looks like neither side is willing to budge, so > logic and Debian policy say both must bear the costs.
That seemed to make sense the first time I read it, but the more I think about it the less convinced I am. The actual costs of Debian renaming both `node`s will mostly be borne by Debian, and our users, not by the upstream projects. There's really no point in trying to punish the upstreams at all, because the next naming conflict is sure to involve two different upstreams; such punishment has no deterrent value, and only sours things. And not letting the most-popular name win flies in the face of recent history: chromium the browser conflicted with chromium the game and won; git the VCS conflicted with git the little-used gnu tools, and won. -- see shy jo, who is currently involved in a naming conflict over "parallel"
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
