On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 01:10:24PM +0200, Vincent Bernat wrote: > > As said many times, node is an interpreter used in shebang. Using a > different name would just upset its user base. Debian will be seen, > again, as the one harming a community, like this may happen in the > Ruby community because of lack of understanding on how we work. > Outside of Debian, nobody will understand why a package related to > HAM radio hinders the use of one of the trendiest package (in the > top 5 of most watched and forked repository in GitHub).
So every time something is the hot new trend it has the right to usurp an established package's binary namespace? I'm not asking this to be argumentative, I really want to know if this is your intention. I'm not saying there is a perpetual right to a name either, but when a package has active users, has been in the distribution a long time, and still does what it is designed to do there should be some significant consideration given to protecting that package's name space. > > We are building a distribution for users. There are far more users > of node.js than there is for node. Plus the fact that the proposed > change will be absolutely invisible to most users of the "node" > package. The ham radio community is also our users. In fact, one of Debian's early focus areas was amateur radio software (see Bruce Perens' history in Debian - he wanted to have a distribution that included the ham radio software and tools). Are you a ham radio user of node? You can not make assertions that the change will be "absolutely invisible to most users" if you have zero experience with the community that uses the package. The fact is it will break machines that have been in service for possibly as long as 13 years. Pat -- 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/20120503173516.gh19...@flying-gecko.net
