On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 07:14:04PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: >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.
Contrast that with the positive actitude of the NFS developers of CITI at UMichi when heimdal-dev and libgssapi-dev both contained /usr/lib/libgssapi.a [1]. They went to the trouble of renaming libgssapi to libgssglue. [1] http://bugs.debian.org/380287 -- 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/20120428025806.ga7...@master.debian.org
