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

Re: The "node" command in Debian

On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 10:54:24AM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Feb 2011, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> > The LinuxNode project
> > ---------------------
> > The other is a frontend to libax25, an AX.25 implementation for Linux.
> > Hardware implementations of AX.25 are apparently called "terminal node
> > controllers" or "nodes" for short; hence this Linux-based
> > implementation was called LinuxNode and its binary called "node".  It
> > was introduced in January, 1996.  It seems that its family tree also
> > includes (unpackaged) implementations named AWZNode and FlexNode.
> 1996 was a long time ago, the world was much smaller back then.  It was
> still a very very poor choice of naming, and it should have been named
> ax25node from day one.

Similar AX.25 tools "call" and "listen" were renamed in 2007 to ax*
(package ax25-apps), because those names were too generic (according to
the changelog).

I think renaming the node binary to axnode is reasonable and consistent with 
this, but I don't think the nodejs program should be using that name

> If push comes to shove, nobody is going to try to force _them_ to give
> up that name.  You can get the package itself renamed to ax25node, and
> have the required "node" transitional package in squeeze+1, so as to
> have no "node" package in squeeze+2, but rename the executable itself?
> not likely.

We did it with call and listen, both used from the command line more
frequently, so it's not out of the question.

> 4. as the one with the weaker claim, node.js can move its executable out
>    of the generic namespace or rename its executable to something else.

I think it should do that anyway.


Reply to: