On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 04:17:37PM +0100, Paolo Greppi wrote: > On 03/11/2016 15:28, Lars Wirzenius wrote: > > The JS package manager called yarn is quite new. It wouldn't be > > unreasonable to suggest to them to rename it to avoid a naming > > conflict, in my opinion. > > Fine, I have opened an "Issue" in the github tracker, let's see if this > is received constructively: > https://github.com/yarnpkg/yarn/issues/1656 Upstream seems to not want to change the name. They closed that bug with the following explanation: # We don't have any intentions of using the yarnpkg binary as the sole # one. There's prior art here with Node.js using node instead of # nodejs even though there's already a Debian package called node. See # #673 for more information. The upstream 673 bug doesn't actually contain an explanation, though. I see the following possibilities now: a) You rename the yarn package manager in Debian (both package and binary). I keep the yarn name for my program and package. b) We both rename. Nobody uses the name yarn, either as package or as a binary name. I'm not happy if I have to give up the yarn name. I find it unfair that I have to rename just because some new upstream decides to use I name I've already been using for years, and refuses to reconsider their use of the name. -- I want to build worthwhile things that might last. --joeyh
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature