On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 03:31:02AM +0200, 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. >
I was under the impression that neither package was going to move forward with a binary named "node" The proposal was made for a transition plan to be made then the nodejs person quit talking/posting. Pat -- ,-----------------------------------------------------------------------------. > Patrick Ouellette | Start by doing what's necessary; then do < > pat(at)flying-gecko.net | what's possible; and suddenly you are doing < > Amateur Radio: NE4PO | the impossible. -- Francis of Assisi < `-----------------------------------------------------------------------------' -- 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/20120501205524.gi30...@flying-gecko.net
