Maybe this is the wrong place to make such a suggestion, but why not add an
extra package ("nodejs-as-node") that creates a symlinks node -> nodejs?
That package could conflict with the ax25 package; if people want to have
both they just install nodejs but not the symlink.
- Bert
On Friday, July 13, 2012 4:52:11 AM UTC+2, ryandesign wrote:
>
> I am not familiar with Debian or Linux, but am a manager of the MacPorts
> project, and in that capacity I have certainly encountered the problem of
> two different software packages wanting to install a program of the same
> name. The authors of those software packages might not have been aware of
> one another, but when packages want to live in the same package manager,
> some kind of decision must be made. In MacPorts we might initially mark the
> two packages as conflicting with one another, which makes it impossible for
> the user to install both simultaneously; this usually invites complaints
> from users fairly rapidly. The other option is to install the programs into
> different directories, but that's not very satisfactory either because it
> makes the user modify their PATH or call the programs by their absolute
> path, and requires them to be aware of the conflict. Other times we might
> rename one of the programs, like Debian have done. Whichever program is
> renamed, that package's developers are likely to be unhappy about it, and
> for us at least, which one gets renamed is could be determined by which one
> has been in MacPorts the longest, which one is depended on the most within
> MacPorts, which one was developed first, or even which one is more popular.
>
> The best solution of all would be for one of the upstream developers to
> rename their program so that the name collision no longer exists. What
> would speak against officially renaming the "node" binary to "nodejs"? I
> understand the reluctance to make changes for no reason, but this change
> would have a reason: it would fix the name collision, and would make the
> program name less generic and more recognizable. Possibly even more
> searchable on e.g. Google.
>
> We're not 1.0 yet; it's not too late to make changes like this. One way to
> handle the transition gracefully would be for 0.9.x/0.10.x to rename the
> binary to nodejs and also install a node -> nodejs symlink. Encourage
> developers and users at that time to use "nodejs" instead of "node". In
> 0.11.x/0.12.x, make nodejs print a warning if it's invoked as "node". And
> in some future version, remove the "node" symlink.
>
>
> On Jul 12, 2012, at 18:26, Mark Hahn wrote:
>
> > So they have chosen who gets to use what name? That is insane. It will
> never work. There will be web pages for the rest of time telling how to
> "fix" a node installation on debian.
> >
> > I'm new to the linux community. Has this been tried before, and did it
> work?
>
>
--
Job Board: http://jobs.nodejs.org/
Posting guidelines:
https://github.com/joyent/node/wiki/Mailing-List-Posting-Guidelines
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "nodejs" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/nodejs?hl=en?hl=en
