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

Re: Bug#597571: nodejs: non common executable name (exclusive alternatives ?)

On 21/09/2010 18:01, Patrick Ouellette wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 05:26:30PM +0200, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
>> Did you say that before? I don't think so. Personally, I care about the
>> Debian package only because the original bugreport (from where this
>> discussion started) was against the Debian package and for a Debian
>> specificity, not about the genericity of the name used for the shipped binary.
> Part of the historical discussion on debian-hams and Jéré  mentioned
> it in this thread today.
> Pat

To sump up view points from upstream and from debian :
*it's your problem*

Maybe a solution would be to define a kind of
"exclusive alternative" :
if one wants some "node" link, that points to /usr/sbin/node
(x)or to /usr/bin/nodejs, he could choose which one's the best
in a postinst routine, common to both packages.

On might object "node" would have a different meaning, depending
on the packages installed ; still, nodejs or x25node (if its maintainer
cares to follow) would be there, and unambiguous.

Do that notion of "exclusive alternatives" is insane, or been discussed before ?


Reply to: