On Fri, 4 May 2012 19:00:10 +0200, Pau Garcia i Quiles <pgqui...@elpauer.org> wrote: ... > Agreed. That's why my proposal was that *all* of those (Debian, > Fedora, Suse, MacPorts and brew) did the rename, not just us (Debian). > It's certainly not nice to push upstream to do something they don't > want to do, but when upstream is not doing their due diligence...
As a lapsed HAM who's not transmitted anything for about 20 years, and someone vaguely aware of node.js, I feel relatively unbiased about this. How about doing the following: node package replaced by a node-legacy package that contains no more than a README and a symlink node --> ax25-node, and depends on ax25-node ax25-node package, which contains what node does now, with the binary renamed nodejs package replaced by a node.js-legacy (or a better name if there is one) package that contains no more than a README and a symlink node --> node.js (or whatever), and depends on node.js node.js package that is the nodejs package with a renamed binary. and make node-legacy and node.js-legacy conflict. The problems with this would seem to be the potential pain of renaming packages, and the fact that using conflicts like that is a policy violation -- could we perhaps make an exception for a case like this on the basis that the package descriptions could spell out why the conflict is there. The result would be that either camp can install the -legacy package and carry on unaffected, and anyone that needs both simply avoids the -legacy packages, and fixes any hard-coded paths on their system, which they'll know to do because they'll be a (probably more cluefull than average) combined HAM and Node.js user who's been pointed at the READMEs by the conflict and the package descriptions. The -legacy naming will apply a gentle pressure to just use the real packages, which will leave the door open to upstreams to see the light and change their default name, but not so much pressure that they'll get upset about it. The READMEs of all the packages could refer to why this was done, and how to get what you want depending one which of the various permutations of behaviours you want. So this would need package replacement, which is a pain, and an exception for a policy violation -- is that enough to kill the idea? Cheers, Phil. -- |)| Philip Hands [+44 (0)20 8530 9560] http://www.hands.com/ |-| HANDS.COM Ltd. http://www.uk.debian.org/ |(| 10 Onslow Gardens, South Woodford, London E18 1NE ENGLAND
pgp6pmjLaSL3o.pgp
Description: PGP signature
