On Sun, May 06, 2012 at 09:49:11PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > On 12-05-06 at 10:22am, Steve Langasek wrote: > > On Sat, May 05, 2012 at 03:07:27AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > > We have until now maintained Nodejs only in unstable because > > > requests to rename axnode was met with either silence or refusal > > > with the reasoning that axnode was more widely used in Debian than > > > Nodejs. > > > Obviously Nodejs is not widely used in Debian when initially > > > packaged. So I've simply waited until it was really sensible to > > > make such comparison of popularity among the users of Debian. Which > > > seems to be the case now - even if still impaired by Nodejs only > > > offered to our users of unstable and experimental Debian. > > I find this response from you *very* disappointing. It implies that > > you knew that you had a responsibility to rename the Nodejs binary > > according to Policy, but that rather than acting in a timely manner to > > persuade upstream of the importance of renaming, you decided to wait > > until momentum was on your side so that you could have an outcome in > > your favor. > No, that is not what it means. You are reading timings into it that I > did not write there, and you are reading those timings wrong! Ok, sorry for the misunderstanding. That certainly is what I took from your statement that you were waiting until it was "sensible" to compare popularity, but it seems I misunderstood. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature