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

Re: Bug#597571: nodejs: non common executable name

2010/9/21 Jérémy Lal <jerry@edagames.com>:
> On 21/09/2010 01:31, Carl Fürstenberg wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 00:46, Jérémy Lal <jerry@edagames.com> wrote:
>>> On 21/09/2010 00:27, Carl Fürstenberg wrote:
>>>> Package: nodejs
>>>> Version: 0.2.2-1
>>>> Severity: normal
>>>> in debian, the executable name is set to "nodejs"; this seems to be
>>>> really uncommon out in the wild, where it's assumed it's called "node"
>>>> for short.
>>>> Unless there is a compelling reason for sticking with the name "nodejs",
>>>> I would want the package to change the name of the executable to "node",
>>>> or at least add an alias for it.
>>> The only reason is because there's already a package providing a "node" binary
>>> in debian [0].
>>> I also contacted debian-hams to see if they'd mind changing this binary name,
>>> and the answer is clearly no [1].
>>> So for now, i guess conflicting with "node" package is the only alternative.
>>> However, i doubt it will be accepted. Do this reason for a conflict have already
>>> been accepted in the archive ?
>>> [0]
>>> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2010/08/msg00568.html
>>> [1]
>>> http://lists.debian.org/debian-hams/2010/08/msg00031.html
>> Don't know if it's a valid source, but according to popcon, "nodejs"
>> http://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=nodejs is more popular now
>> than "node" http://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=node
> I noticed. Unfortunately it's not.
> Feel free to submit any idea about that problem !
> Jérémy.

Policy only states "The maintainers should report this to the
debian-devel mailing list and try to find a consensus about which
program will have to be renamed. If a consensus cannot be reached,
both programs must be renamed."; I don't see any consensus in the
thread you linked to, so technically both must change at the moment :)

I do CC -devel though, so we can see what their input is on this
issue. (the reply from Ray Wells felt really single sided and

/Carl Fürstenberg <azatoth@gmail.com>

Reply to: