(+cc: nod...@packages.debian.org. Sorry for the noise.)
Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Patrick Ouellette wrote:
>> You claim to not use either package, but yet you advocate for the node.js
>> package to keep the executable name "node" - this is strange to me.
>
> Sorry, I must have been unclear.
A few
Patrick Ouellette wrote:
> You claim to not use either package, but yet you advocate for the node.js
> package to keep the executable name "node" - this is strange to me.
Sorry, I must have been unclear. I was only explaining my preference.
I wasn't lying. I also said:
>> However, if the only
On Sun, Nov 06, 2011 at 09:20:31PM -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>
> Hi Pat,
>
> Patrick Ouellette wrote:
>
> > The binary on the ham radio side is not "LinuxNode" in package "node" it is
> > simply "node" in package "node"
> >
> > Since you are still concerned with this issue, and neither side
On Sun, Nov 06, 2011 at 01:27:42AM -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> In February, I wrote[1]:
>
> > Both LinuxNode (package "node") and node.js (package "nodejs") are
> > designed to be accessed through the command name "node".
> [...]
> > If there is any way I can help, please feel free
Hi Pat,
Patrick Ouellette wrote:
> The binary on the ham radio side is not "LinuxNode" in package "node" it is
> simply "node" in package "node"
>
> Since you are still concerned with this issue, and neither side has shown a
> willingness to change, I would say the time has come for both packages
On Mon, 7 Nov 2011 12:24:35 +1100
Brian May wrote:
> On 7 November 2011 11:26, Andreas Bombe wrote:
> > The sftp-server on the other hand is provided by the package that
> > also contains its only caller AFAICS. That should be
> > in /usr/lib/$PACKAGE together with other package specific binary
On 7 November 2011 11:26, Andreas Bombe wrote:
> The sftp-server on the other hand is provided by the package that also
> contains its only caller AFAICS. That should be in /usr/lib/$PACKAGE
> together with other package specific binary stuff — it doesn't make a
> difference whether it's linked, d
On Sun, Nov 06, 2011 at 11:36:05PM +, Clint Adams wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 06, 2011 at 04:25:32PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > What is the use case?
>
> The use case is to have a place for executables that are treated
> similarly to libraries by other executables.
>
> For example, tcpd gets
On Sun, Nov 06, 2011 at 11:36:05PM +, Clint Adams wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 06, 2011 at 04:25:32PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > What is the use case?
> The use case is to have a place for executables that are treated
> similarly to libraries by other executables.
> For example, tcpd gets run
On Sun, Nov 06, 2011 at 04:25:32PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> What is the use case?
The use case is to have a place for executables that are treated
similarly to libraries by other executables.
For example, tcpd gets run by inetd but not by humans, so it
would be silly to have it on root's
Le dimanche 06 novembre 2011 à 14:46 +, Clint Adams a écrit :
> On Sat, Nov 05, 2011 at 04:51:14PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > 1. There is still no good reason for libexec.
>
> Of course there is.
What is the use case?
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette
: :' :
`. `'
`-
signature.asc
Des
On Sat, Nov 05, 2011 at 04:51:14PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> 1. There is still no good reason for libexec.
Of course there is.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.
On Sun, 06 Nov 2011 13:18:36 +0100
Niels Thykier wrote:
> The reduced set is available thanks to some UDD queries. We are looking
> at ~500 packages (see attached dd-list if some of your packages are there).
> Thanks for considering,
> ~Niels
>
> [1] http://people.debian.org/~nthykier/rg-build
On 2011-11-05 21:22, Niels Thykier wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I would like to propose the goal of getting archive-wide support for
> the optional debian/rules targets "build-arch" and "build-indep".
> The intention is to finally solve issues like #619284 and the goal
> is related to #629385.
>
> [...]
>
Am Samstag, 5. November 2011, 22:14:15 schrieb Tollef Fog Heen:
> ]] Hendrik Sattler
>
> | Am Freitag, 4. November 2011, 20:55:24 schrieb Tollef Fog Heen:
> | > So since gnome-shell actually needs gnome-bluetooth, the dependency
> | > should be demoted to a Recommends?
> |
> | Needs? Why should a
On Sat, 5 Nov 2011 16:51:14 +
Ian Jackson wrote:
> Clint Adams writes ("Re: directory under /usr/bin -- Ok or not?"):
> > On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 09:46:20PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > > I don?t think Debian requests FHS to document something before we
> > > can use it. The real proble
On Sun, 2011-11-06 at 01:09 +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le vendredi 04 novembre 2011 à 21:21 +, Ben Hutchings a écrit :
> > It's not a GNU invention; I believe it derives from BSD.
>
> I stand corrected. That doesn’t make it have any more sense, though.
>
> > Apparently it's for executa
Hi,
In February, I wrote[1]:
> Both LinuxNode (package "node") and node.js (package "nodejs") are
> designed to be accessed through the command name "node".
[...]
> If there is any way I can help, please feel free to ask.
No response from the "node" package maintainers. My offer still
stands, b
18 matches
Mail list logo
