Mehdi Dogguy writes ("Re: Bug#597571: nodejs: non common executable name"):
> Wrong. nodejs still provides the binary nodejs and not _node_. So, nodejs can
> stay as is. The rename would be necessary if both packages provide the
> same binary (same filename), which is not the case here.
Sorry, when I wrote in my posting by "both binaries should be renamed"
I meant "neither binary should be called `node'".
> Please read again the bit of the policy you wrote.
I was trying (and failing, sorry) to explain the reasoning behind the
policy, rather than insisting on the strict letter of its
interpretation.
I don't think the fact that the nodejs maintainer already renamed
their binary right from the beginning excuses the behaviour of the
"node" maintainer. ("node" is a really bad package name, too.)
So /usr/sbin/node from the "node" package should be renamed IMO.
Ian.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
http://lists.debian.org/19608.48023.679605.322...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
