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

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Node.js and it's future in debian

Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> As I understand the current status, it has already on this list been 
> resolved that *both* packages should back off from using the clashing 
> name "node".
> I also am biased in one direction but shall not say which as I see no 
> benefit at this point in rehashing the discussion: Both packaging 
> "camps" have clearly demonstrated a lack of interest in letting the 
> other use the name "node", which means we must both step off of it.

Just because someone read policy or whatever it was in a way that
requires this King Solomonesque approach to this sort of conflict, does
not actually mean that it makes sense to me, or I hope, to most of us.
It's certianly not the fait accompli you make it out to be.

There is a transition plan and patch for the (ham radio) node in
#614907. Nobody has been able to demonstate any appreciable problems
with renaming it. Indeed, noone has demonstrated any likely reason
for its "node" command to be run directly.

see shy jo

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: