On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 05:07:39PM +0200, Mehdi Dogguy wrote: > > On 21/09/2010 16:02, Patrick Ouellette wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 03:54:41PM +0200, Mehdi Dogguy wrote: > >> > >> Wrong. nodejs still provides the binary nodejs and not _node_. So, > >> nodejs can stay as is. The rename would be necessary if both > >> packages provide the same binary (same filename), which is not the > >> case here. > >> > > > > Actually, from the discussion in debian-hams, nodejs provides a binary > > named "node" - otherwise we would not need to have the discussion at > > all since there would be no conflict. > > > > Wrong. nodejs's maintainer wants to rename "bin/nodejs" to "bin/node"… > that's why there was the discussion on debian-hams. (But then, whether the > rename is appropriate is another story… IMO, it's not appropriate because > the name is too generic. And as Ian already pointed out, even "node" > should be renamed). > > $ dpkg -L nodejs | grep bin/ > /usr/bin/nodejs >
You are quick with the "wrong" button. The UPSTREAM nodejs is /usr/bin/node. The Debian package renamed it to nodejs. -- Patrick Ouellette p...@flying-gecko.net ne4po (at) arrl (dot) net Amateur Radio: NE4PO What kind of change have you been in the world today? -- 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/20100921152247.ga14...@flying-gecko.net