-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Le 05/05/12 09:29, Philip Hands a écrit :
> On Fri, 4 May 2012 19:00:10 +0200, Pau Garcia i Quiles
> <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: ...
>> Agreed. That's why my proposal was that *all* of those (Debian,
>> Fedora, Suse, MacPorts and brew) did the rename, not just us
>> (Debian). It's certainly not nice to push upstream to do
>> something they don't want to do, but when upstream is not doing
>> their due diligence...
> As a lapsed HAM who's not transmitted anything for about 20 years,
> and someone vaguely aware of node.js, I feel relatively unbiased
> about this.
I'm just an unbiased reader of Debian devel, I don't care for either
package (but I care for Debian). Your proposal seems very sane to me.
> How about doing the following:
> node package replaced by a node-legacy package that contains no
> more than a README and a symlink node --> ax25-node, and depends
> on ax25-node
> ax25-node package, which contains what node does now, with the
> binary renamed
In addition, node-legacy could Provide node, so that it is installed
on system upgrade for systems where it was there before, with an
explanation that this package is for transition purpose and the
implications of removing it.
> So this would need package replacement, which is a pain, and an
> exception for a policy violation -- is that enough to kill the
As I understand it, Policy is broken here: if the two binaries where
installed in /usr/bin, it would be fine (Policy-wise) to Conflict. We
have here a rare (hopefully) instance where the conflicting command
name are not file conflicts, which just happens to be badly handled by
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----