On 11-11-16 at 07:08pm, Bernd Zeimetz wrote: > On 11/15/2011 01:48 AM, Paul Wise wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 8:14 AM, Alex Pennace wrote: > > > >> Even without that point, the conclusion remains the same: Both > >> projects should endure the rename (unless one concedes), and that > >> shouldn't be viewed in terms of "look at what those meanies in > >> Debian are making us do" but instead regarded as a natural outcome > >> of the choices each project made at various times. > > > > I personally wonder if we should change our policy instead of > > forcing these two upstream communities into conflict. > > I think we should for these cases where it is obvious that one > software exists for a much longer time than the other. We should not > force old projects to rename themselves just because the developers of > a new project did not investigate if they use an existing name. > Checking filenames of the largest distributions is not hard. Who says the package maintainers of nodejs did not investigate the use of an existing name? Why do noone comment on the point raised that the ham tool possibly can change the name of its binary without involving its end-users, whereas changing the name of the nodejs binary affects all end-users directly? - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature