On 07/05/12 19:41, Philip Hands wrote:
> The -legacy was meant
> to be an attention grabber, and perhaps to reflect a hope that at some
> point in the future one or both upstreams might switch to a better name.
I think "legacy" is rather misleading, since its upstream
(unfortunately) doesn't think there's anything "legacy" about that name.
nodejs-node? nodejs-compat? nodejs-namespace-grab?
> It occurs to me that if we're going to allow this form of
> conflicts-abuse, we should also insist that no dependencies are allowed
> on the conflicting packages, to ensure that only the distinct binary
> names are available for depending packages.
That sounds like a reasonable principle for cases like this where
installing the packages together makes sense (as opposed to packages
that Provide/Conflict over a common interface, like MTAs).
S
--
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/4fa8207c.20...@debian.org
