Carl Fürstenberg <azat...@gmail.com> writes: > As I'm not a hamradio user, I'm off course biased towards letting nodejs > having the "node" binary and let it pass to testing. But we must find a > solution to this, as nodejs is getting more and more used, and > developers are forced to install nodejs from source to be able to use it > instead of install it via the package manager.
This increasingly feels like the same situation as Git: yes, another utility was first, but the usage of one is a tiny fraction of the usage of the other, and people expecting to use a common package expect it to be available under that name and think poorly of Debian when it doesn't just work. In an ideal world, *neither* application would be using "node", since it's a very generic name, but the reality is that people go off and do things without paying attention to our naming policy and sometimes the really popular ones get away with stomping on namespace just because they're popular. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- 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/87ehr87gcz....@windlord.stanford.edu
