[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Node.js and it's future in debian

* Steve Langasek [2012-05-06 10:11 -0700]:
> On Sat, May 05, 2012 at 10:50:21PM +0200, Carsten Hey wrote:
> > If nodejs is installed later because an other package depends on it or
> > recommends it, this symlink would be overwritten by dpkg without any
> > prior notice.
> No; one package installs /usr/sbin/node, the other installs /usr/bin/node.
> So the symlink would not be overwritten.

You're of course right, this reduces the possible breakage of an
non-packaged symlink to usage without path and depending on the value of

>  - We don't want admins to have to be forced to choose between two unrelated
>    packages to have available on the system because an upstream failed to do
>    due diligence when choosing a name.

After finishing migration, admins would not need to choose between two
unrelated programs anymore, but still, as you wrote, between two
unrelated packages.

> At least with a transitional package, ...

I used the term "compatibility package" instead of "transitional
package" because deborphan detects packages with the latter in the short
description as orphans if the option --guess-dummy or --guess-all is
used.  Whether node should be shown by deborphan --guess-dummy is

By the way, I think if your ruling requires a new name for node, the
final name should be up to node's maintainers and not be part of your


Reply to: