On 12-04-29 at 11:22am, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > > IMO this change only makes sense because Policy (and an opposite > > camp equally stubborn as we are, but IMO by a weaker reasoning) > > forces us to do so. > > If that's the case, then I don't support it. I really don't want to > be part of a bad technical decision made to appease people, since that > just breeds more bad technical decisions. > > I agree that this change doesn't make any sense unless there's a good > chance of it also happening upstream. Any hints towards making a > patch doing that?
Oh, I am confused now: Didn't you hint yourself that upstream might not like it? Re-reading I now see that you wrote "...without a patch", but still I saw no indication from the mailinglist thread you referenced that upstream will accept a patch. I am in no way _against_ passing this upstream, just am not an optimist about it. I can easily follow an upstream POV of considering it equally fair to call their executable "node" as a C compiler calls it "cc". And since they do, I find it quite problematic to rename in Debian because that executable is central to that language and exposed (via scripts and libraries if not directly on the commandline) to our end users. I can also easily follow an upstream finding it sensible to call some daemon "node" and not (upstream) wanting to change it - but I fail to understand why the Debian package maintainers of that daemon see it as problematic to rename that daemon for Debian. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
Description: Digital signature