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

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

Mehdi Dogguy writes ("Re: Bug#597571: nodejs: non common executable name"):
> 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.

Sorry, when I wrote in my posting by "both binaries should be renamed"
I meant "neither binary should be called `node'".

> Please read again the bit of the policy you wrote.

I was trying (and failing, sorry) to explain the reasoning behind the
policy, rather than insisting on the strict letter of its

I don't think the fact that the nodejs maintainer already renamed
their binary right from the beginning excuses the behaviour of the
"node" maintainer.  ("node" is a really bad package name, too.)

So /usr/sbin/node from the "node" package should be renamed IMO.


Reply to: