* Patrick Ouellette [2012-05-01 16:55 -0400]: > I was under the impression that neither package was going to move forward with > a binary named "node"
Some proposed this, some agreed, others did not. In the just reported bug #671120 I wrote regarding this neither package should get the name part of the policy: | The common reading of the according section does neither match what | seems to be the original intention [1] nor my common sense. | | [1] http://lists.debian.org/<879142cjni....@slip-61-16.ots.utexas.edu> > The proposal was made for a transition plan to be made then the nodejs > person quit talking/posting. Ian's proposal was as far as I understood it when reading it basically rolling a dice and I hope that I either misread it or that it was meant as a joke. If the node package needs to rename the binary it obviously needs a new name ;) Hamish suggested axnode once, the patch lying in the BTS uses ax25-node. Do you have any preference in case it is needed? Thanks for caring about this thread. Carsten -- 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/20120501223105.gb14...@furrball.stateful.de
