Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > 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 because someone read policy or whatever it was in a way that requires this King Solomonesque approach to this sort of conflict, does not actually mean that it makes sense to me, or I hope, to most of us. It's certianly not the fait accompli you make it out to be. There is a transition plan and patch for the (ham radio) node in #614907. Nobody has been able to demonstate any appreciable problems with renaming it. Indeed, noone has demonstrated any likely reason for its "node" command to be run directly. -- see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
