On 12-04-29 at 12:18pm, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > 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",
> Right, I think it is unlikely that upstream would be happy to see 
> anyone asking them to work on this.  With a patch I don't think it's a 
> hard sell, given that it only amounts to adding a new synonym for a 
> command and would save upstream from having to deal with people 
> bringing it up again. :)
> >                                                           but still 
> > I saw no indication from the mailinglist thread you referenced that 
> > upstream will accept a patch.
> Ryan wrote
> | I want Node to have the executable name 'node'.
> The tone, if I understood correctly, was one of "why are you bothering 
> me about this nonsense?".  I agree with him --- removing the 'node' 
> command would break compatibility for a large group of users and is a 
> non-starter.  I don't think that implies he won't like a patch adding 
> a nodejs synonym.

So you see no loss.  But what is the gain?  To please distributors?

Isn't your patch about promoting that alternative name instead of the 
former?  I see a loss of that (from an upstream POV) as it renders 
current documentation, books and code slightly confusing (albeit still 
working fine).  What is the gain (for upstream) in promotion of the 
alternate name?  Or is that part meant only for Debian consumption?

> To be crystal clear: previously I might have mentioned that Debian 
> policy requires removing the 'node' command to comply with Debian 
> policy if the project cannot come to a consensus about what is to 
> happen.  If that's the only way to get the package in wheezy, fine. 
> But that is not what this bug report is about.

Yes.  Sorry if I poured too much of my frustration here :-/

> [...]
> > I can also easily follow an upstream finding it sensible to call 
> > some daemon "node" and not (upstream) wanting to change it
> I don't think the ham radio tool node's upstream has weighed in at 
> all, actually.  Alas, ax25-node is undermaintained in Debian.  It may 
> be that their upstream won't mind the name change.

Fully agreed.  I should have written "imagine" rather than "follow".

 - 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