On 12-04-28 at 03:31am, Carl Fürstenberg wrote: > There has been an log struggle between the nodejs package and the node > package, which is still unresolved (bug #611698 for example) And I > wonder now what the future should look like. > > To summarize the problem: > * the nodejs upstream binary is called "node", and the upstream > developers have refused to change it's binary name to nodejs for > debian; > * The the hamradio package "node" shipping a binary called "node", and > as it's so old, the developers argue that the package must ship a > binary called "node" or breakage will occur. > * The reason the nodejs developers want to ship the binary as "node" > is because all programs written for nodejs all has /usr/bin/node in > it's shebang > * the nodejs package are not allowed to conflict on the node package > just because the binary name is the same > > 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.
As I understand the current status, it has already on this list been resolved that *both* packages should back off from using the clashing name "node". I also am biased in one direction but shall not say which as I see no benefit at this point in rehashing the discussion: Both packaging "camps" have clearly demonstrated a lack of interest in letting the other use the name "node", which means we must both step off of it. Just today there was progress on the side of Node.js - see bug#650343. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
