(shrinking cc list because I think I've said too much on -devel already)
Patrick Ouellette wrote:
> I was under the impression that neither package was going to move forward with
> a binary named "node"
> The proposal was made for a transition plan to be made then the nodejs
> person quit talking/posting.
I think you misunderstood before. Ian suggested a way to move forward
without having to rely on good faith on both sides:
1. "node" maintainer and "nodejs" maintainers prepare packages that
remove the "node" command.
2. Maintainer of one of the two packages uploads both.
3. Usual mechanisms (release team, etc) ensure that the "node"
command is not reintroduced.
I think the maintainers of both packages were ok with that, but then
step (1) never happened. I proposed a patch for the node package that
does not involve removing the "node" command, and got no response,
except a comment criticizing me for not being a ham radio user or
testing it. I proposed a patch for the nodejs package that does not
involve removing the "node" command, and it was applied.
Everyone has been quiet because talking is exhausting. Action that
prevents the need to talk and guess about people would be much
A lot of time has passed since then. Several people mentioned that
just like the case of Solomon offering to split a baby in two, the
option of both renaming is meant to force a decision, not to encourage
the project to cut off its nose to spite its face. I personally
believe that if you consider the projects independently of Debian:
- LinuxNode would benefit from renaming its binary to something
that does not conflict with Node.js
- Node.js would benefit from having a synonym that does not conflict
Maybe wheezy could be released with both /usr/bin/node and
/usr/sbin/node present, and with configuration migrated to point to
/usr/sbin/ax25-node. That configuration migrated part is way more
important than the disposition of the "node" command, in my humble