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

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



On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 01:32:21 +0200
Jérémy Lal <jerry@edagames.com> wrote:

> On 23/09/2010 01:24, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Jérémy Lal writes ("Re: Bug#597571: nodejs: non common executable
> > name (exclusive alternatives ?)"):
> >> 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.
> > 
> > I think this kind of horrendous stuff should not be done in packages
> > and certainly not by just installing them.
> > 
> > If the sysadmin really hates it so much, they can
> >   ln -s /usr/bin/nodejs /usr/local/bin/node
> > surely ?
> 
> Of course, then i guess it's ok to put this in the description ?

Ummm, no. Any sysadmin who doesn't know about 'ln -s' shouldn't be a
sysadmin any longer. It's not the job of the package description to
educate the user, it just describes the package.

These naming conflicts are not new, packages just have to rename their
executables. There have always been complaints about "user scripts and
other tools" etc. but the answer is the same: rename the executables
and document this in README.Debian or the manpage.

Blame upstream - and direct users to complain to upstream too.

> I fear most people won't read README.Debian.

Nevertheless, that is an appropriate place for this "information" if you
really think that your users will not think of it themselves.
Alternatively, put it in the manpage.

-- 


Neil Williams
=============
http://www.data-freedom.org/
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
http://e-mail.is-not-s.ms/

Attachment: pgpzvksUTsae3.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: