The last paragraph of [1] suggests that there is no technical conflict between the maintainers of both packages. All that would have been needed after the communication problem was solved is a technical solution that makes all happy and the release team and the ftpmasters agreeing to ignore the according policy violation. Anyway, now the technical committee is in the game and I assume the release team would not create facts whilst the TC is discussing this unless it is asked by TC members.
The last paragraph of [2] should IMHO be read before any ruling happens. [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-hams/2012/05/msg00003.html [2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-hams/2012/05/msg00017.html * Don Armstrong [2012-05-31 11:49 -0700]: > = Draft solution = > > 1. nodejs is to provide /usr/bin/nodejs Possible reasons to name the command nodejs and not node are noted below, none of them is compelling: * Punishing nodejs users, which might be in conflict with the social contract. * Supporting upgrades from a nodesjs package that provides the command name nodejs. Such a package does not exist, at least in stable. * Let node/stable users upgrade to Wheezy and install nodejs without the need to migrate custom node scripts previously. Those three users can be informed about the need to migrate custom scripts before installing nodejs via a NEWS file. * "This is by design". This does not imply that the design is reasonable. As written in an earlier mail to -ctte, I think, nodejs should provide /usr/bin/node instead. > 1. ax25-node to provide /usr/sbin/ax25-node I don't think the TC should rule about names for the executable and the package. There is no technical reason against naming both for example axnode instead of ax25-node. A ballot without nodejs-legacy could be: A. The binary package node should be renamed to a name to be chosen by its maintainers, or, if they do not choose a name, axnode. A binary package node that provides a symlink /usr/sbin/node, conflicts with the package nodejs, provides a NEWS file and depends on renamed node package should be created. This new binary package node should not be considered to violate the policy because of the conflict with nodejs for one release cycle. The Debian Hamradio Maintainers should accept reasonable patches that implement the above explained. Given that above changes are implemented, the package nodejs should conflict with node and this conflict should not be considered to be a policy violation for two release cycles. B. Further discussion Many things, for example, removing node from Debian when Wheezy+1 gets frozen, are implied by the above. Carsten -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
