On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 11:28:04AM -0500, Steve Kostecke wrote: > > I've not had time to read that entire thread, but it seems to me that > renaming well known binaries violates the Principle Of Least > Astonishment. > > Has anyone considered making nodejs and ax25 conflict? That would be an > easy way of sidestepping this entire namespace issue. > FWIW, I'm fine with that. Apparently either Node.js people are not OR someone higher in the food chain is not. They are trying to make it so you can have Node.js AND node installed. I suspect the actual cases where this is really desired to be very close to zero. "They" are determined to not introduce the conflicts field. Policy again - from Section 7.4: "Be aware that adding Conflicts is normally not the best solution when two packages provide the same files. Depending on the reason for that conflict, using alternatives or renaming the files is often a better approach. See, for example, Binaries, Section 10.1. Neither Breaks nor Conflicts should be used unless two packages cannot be installed at the same time or installing them both causes one of them to be broken or unusable. Having similar functionality or performing the same tasks as another package is not sufficient reason to declare Breaks or Conflicts with that package. Be aware that adding Conflicts is normally not the best solution when two packages provide the same files. Depending on the reason for that conflict, using alternatives or renaming the files is often a better approach. See, for example, Binaries, Section 10.1." Clearly conflicts is a solution allowed by policy 7.4, and I don't know *why* they continue to press the issue. Apparently bug 611698 which cites policy 10.1 claims "you can't do that." Maybe the tech committee can explain why policy contradicts policy. Pat
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature