On 12-04-28 at 01:50pm, Joey Hess wrote: > 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. Seems the issue is getting rehashing anyway, so let me "reveal" that my bias is on the side of renaming the ham radio daemon and allow Node.js to use "node", because a) I have so far failed to locate any sensible explanation from the ham radio camp why they must keep the name, and b) Node.js is becoming quite popular and is known generally to use "node" in its hash-bang. - 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