Patrick Ouellette <poue...@debian.org> writes: > Of course the #! line is not the issue. The issue is two upstream > maintainers separated by years and miles selected the same generic name > for their binary file.
I agree with this. > Compounding the issue, some Debian Maintainer seeking to better the > project by packaging additional software for the project failed to > perform "due diligence" in researching if any of the binary names from > the proposed new package were already in use. Having packaged the > software and uploaded it, someone noticed the issue and started us down > the path we are on. Maybe we should short-circuit this part of the conversation, since it doesn't sound like you're horribly interested in agreeing to change the name of node in the existing package. :) I think it would make sense to take this to the Technical Committee at this point and just make a decision, unless anyone thinks something substantially new is likely to turn up. (We should probably give it a few more days to see if anything does, but it's feeling increasingly unlikely to me, as is the idea that we're all going to reach a consensus.) -- 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/87y5pbi7xe....@windlord.stanford.edu
