On Mon, May 07, 2012 at 07:41:33PM +0100, Philip Hands wrote: [snip] > It also prevents a HAM from deciding to dabble in Node.js while > preserving the 'node' name for their ax25 use.
Wasn't the main reason (apart from the seniority argument) for preserving the node name for ax25 to prevent remote unmonitored highly important systems from failing? Surely such systems are not quite candidates for dabbling with Node.js on... That said, there's no way we can solve this in a clean way. No matter what solution is chosen in the end someone will suffer from it. No matter who wins, the users lose :S And I don't blame the Debian maintainers of either package. I think that the upstream for Node.js should've done their homework a bit better though, and that the ax25 upstream should've had a bit more imagination. But shit happened already. Regards: David -- /) David Weinehall <t...@debian.org> /) Rime on my window (\ // ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ // Diamond-white roses of fire // \) http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ (/ Beautiful hoar-frost (/ -- 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/20120507201039.gd10...@suiko.acc.umu.se
