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

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list

Reply via email to