On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 08:39:41PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> 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.
I'm not sure if such this solution was already thought of so I have
choosen to present my approach:
A new package named node is created which contains two symlinks
/usr/(s)bin/node, a debconf question, link managing scripts and some
sort of trigger.
Both conflicting packages get a NMU by a neutral member renaming the
node command and adding a dedepency on the new package named node.
When installing only one of the two packages it automatically gets the
node link and everybody is happy.
If both are installed the person is presented a debconf question which
allows him to choose which node* should be the one.
Wouldn't this solve the whole dilemma in a policy compliant and easy
enough fashion that it could be used or what error is there in my idea?
Have a nice sunday