On Tue, Nov 08, 2011 at 07:16:35AM +1100, Damien Gardner Jnr wrote:
> 
> I have to pop my head up from my lurker-hole here, and say that I'm a more 
> than a little confused, why a 15 year old application should change its name 
> at all?  Even the Node.js wiki makes it clear that the application should be 
> called Node.js 'to disambiguate it from other nodes' - it sounds like the 
> developers are being proactive in notifying users that they picked a name 
> which conflicts with other packages?
> 

You would think there would be some weight given to the length of time a
binary has been in the project, but there is not.  First come, first served
does not apply according to Debian Policy.

> I don't know about others, but I'm not overly keen on the idea of 
> reconfiguring machines which were installed last century, because a program 
> which appeared in the last two years has the same name..  If you think about 
> it, node.js is *much* more 'able' to change the name of its binary - it still 
> has an actively developed community!  - I don't know about other folk, but I 
> find it pretty darned hard to find much 'current' documentation about a lot 
> of the older x.25 & bbs stuff I have running on some of my older boxen - one 
> of my BBS packages doesn't even appear in a google search anymore (god help 
> me if the wrapper I setup in 2001 to make it telnet-accessible as well as 
> dial-in, ever breaks ;) )

I hope to avoid any issues with breaking old boxes with the eventual 
resolution of the issue.

> 
> Although I'm curious why both packages can't just shove a Conflicts: in for 
> each other, and be done with it?  Or just leave it as is, since they're in 
> different directories, provided a nice big must-click-ok dialog comes up 
> during install/upgrade to notify the user of the change?  From the AX.25 
> side, and probably at least partly from the Node.js side, the users are going 
> to be fairly cluey, if not accomplished hackerers - having multiple binaries 
> of the same name, in different directories in the path is nothing new (hell, 
> we used to rely on it on some of our hosting servers - things like reboot, 
> shutdown, etc were wrappered with scripts in higher-preferenced directories 
> from the PATH, to make sure accidental reboots, shutdowns, rm's etc, couldn't 
> happen, as explicit paths had to be used..   As for scripts etc, well, if 
> you're not specifying the absolute path to any binary you're calling, you're 
> just asking for trouble anyway!
> 

The issue is one of following policy.  Debian policy doesn't allow such a 
"resolution" to this issue. Consensus on which must change, or both must
change are the only allowed outcomes.

73,

Pat

-- 

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?

_______________________________________________
Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list
Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel

Reply via email to