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

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: