Re: Bug#597571: nodejs: non common executable name
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 05:07:39PM +0200, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
>
> On 21/09/2010 16:02, Patrick Ouellette wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 03:54:41PM +0200, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
> >>
> >> Wrong. nodejs still provides the binary nodejs and not _node_. So,
> >> nodejs can stay as is. The rename would be necessary if both
> >> packages provide the same binary (same filename), which is not the
> >> case here.
> >>
> >
> > Actually, from the discussion in debian-hams, nodejs provides a binary
> > named "node" - otherwise we would not need to have the discussion at
> > all since there would be no conflict.
> >
>
> Wrong. nodejs's maintainer wants to rename "bin/nodejs" to "bin/node"…
> that's why there was the discussion on debian-hams. (But then, whether the
> rename is appropriate is another story… IMO, it's not appropriate because
> the name is too generic. And as Ian already pointed out, even "node"
> should be renamed).
>
> $ dpkg -L nodejs | grep bin/
> /usr/bin/nodejs
>
You are quick with the "wrong" button. The UPSTREAM nodejs is
/usr/bin/node. The Debian package renamed it to nodejs.
--
Patrick Ouellette pat@flying-gecko.net
ne4po (at) arrl (dot) net Amateur Radio: NE4PO
What kind of change have you been in the world today?
Reply to: