On Sat, May 05, 2012 at 08:29:40AM +0100, Philip Hands wrote: > 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 As mentioned by Carsten Hey on debian-ctte, we should certainly keep the same binary package name ('node') to ensure smooth upgrades for users that already have it installed. > ax25-node package, which contains what node does now, with the binary > renamed > nodejs package replaced by a node.js-legacy (or a better name if there > is one) package that contains no more than a README and a symlink node > --> node.js (or whatever), and depends on node.js > node.js package that is the nodejs package with a renamed binary. > and make node-legacy and node.js-legacy conflict. Because Node.js is a scripting interpreter, I believe there's no point in trying to declare the package on the nodejs side 'legacy' unless there's a committment from upstream to deprecate the /usr/bin/node name. So from my perspective, the packages would be: Package: node Depends: ax25-node Conflicts: nodejs -- /usr/sbin/node -> /usr/sbin/ax25-node Package: ax25-node -- /usr/sbin/ax25-node Package: nodejs Conflicts: node -- /usr/bin/nodejs -- /usr/bin/node -> /usr/bin/nodejs > So this would need package replacement, which is a pain, and an > exception for a policy violation -- is that enough to kill the idea? I think it's an acceptable compromise under the circumstances. -- 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/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature