On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 07:58:59PM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 04:23:21PM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> >> Best of luck. You know they've been asked twice before (once for Fedora,
> >> once for Debian), right?
> > No, didn't know that. Wer
Hi Steve,
Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 04:23:21PM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>> Best of luck. You know they've been asked twice before (once for Fedora,
>> once for Debian), right?
>
> No, didn't know that. Were these requests public, or can you tell me what
> the upstream
On 03/05/2012 23:23, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
>
>> Clint Byrum has nudged me about this (wearing his Ubuntu Server hat rather
>> than his shiny new Debian Developer hat) and I've agreed to approach node.js
>> upstream about a possible upstream rename. I'll report back to the
On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 04:23:21PM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> > Clint Byrum has nudged me about this (wearing his Ubuntu Server hat rather
> > than his shiny new Debian Developer hat) and I've agreed to approach node.js
> > upstream about a possible upstream rename. I'll report back to the TC
Steve Langasek wrote:
> Clint Byrum has nudged me about this (wearing his Ubuntu Server hat rather
> than his shiny new Debian Developer hat) and I've agreed to approach node.js
> upstream about a possible upstream rename. I'll report back to the TC what
> I find out.
Best of luck. You know the
On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 04:50:12PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Well, there are some limits even to what upstream can do. Whether Node.js
> has reached that point is debatable, but (to take an obvious example) even
> if upstream wanted to rename python to something else, it's never going to
> happ
* Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) [120503 01:33]:
> Ian Jackson writes:
>
> > I'm disappointed to see this is still rumbling on. There is only one
> > correct solution, and it is this:
>
> >> In the long term, I would be happiest if both were renamed.
>
> I won't reiterate the arguments that I'
Ian Jackson writes:
> I really feel it's unfair to allow johnny-come-lately's who couldn't be
> bothered to choose a reasonable name for their program, and who couldn't
> be bothered even to look up whether the name was already taken, to just
> blunder their way into stealing names like this.
>
(culling cc list since there were noise complains from debian-hams@)
Russ Allbery wrote:
> It's interesting that Fedora has nodejs, and I think we should also
> provide nodejs and encourage people to use that name, but I think it would
> be best for our users to also provide node.
For the record,
Russ Allbery writes ("Bug#614907: tech-ctte: please help maintainers of
packages with a "node" command to have a reasonable conversation"):
> I also think the current Policy suggestion to rename both programs in the
> event of an unreconciled naming conflict is not a v
Ian Jackson writes:
> I'm disappointed to see this is still rumbling on. There is only one
> correct solution, and it is this:
>> In the long term, I would be happiest if both were renamed.
I won't reiterate the arguments that I've already made on debian-devel,
but will mention here for those
Jonathan Nieder writes ("tech-ctte: please help maintainers of packages with a
"node" command to have a reasonable conversation"):
> The "node" and "nodejs" packages both provide a command named "node".
I'm disappointed to see this is s
Jonathan Nieder schreef:
reassign 614907 tech-ctte
quit
Dear Technical Committee,
Welcome to the "kinder garden"
I will leave the group now
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archiv
reassign 614907 tech-ctte
quit
Dear Technical Committee,
The "node" and "nodejs" packages both provide a command named "node".
The command in the node package is in /usr/sbin; the command in nodejs
is in /usr/bin. Both are very important commands that are widely used
in their respective communit
14 matches
Mail list logo
