On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 01:32:21 +0200
Jérémy Lal je...@edagames.com wrote:
On 23/09/2010 01:24, Ian Jackson wrote:
Jérémy Lal writes (Re: Bug#597571: nodejs: non common executable
name (exclusive alternatives ?)):
On might object node would have a different meaning, depending
On 21/09/2010 18:01, Patrick Ouellette wrote:
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 05:26:30PM +0200, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
Did you say that before? I don't think so. Personally, I care about the
Debian package only because the original bugreport (from where this
discussion started) was against the Debian
Jérémy Lal writes (Re: Bug#597571: nodejs: non common executable name
(exclusive alternatives ?)):
On might object node would have a different meaning, depending
on the packages installed ; still, nodejs or x25node (if its maintainer
cares to follow) would be there, and unambiguous.
I think
On 23/09/2010 01:24, Ian Jackson wrote:
Jérémy Lal writes (Re: Bug#597571: nodejs: non common executable name
(exclusive alternatives ?)):
On might object node would have a different meaning, depending
on the packages installed ; still, nodejs or x25node (if its maintainer
cares to follow
On 21/09/2010 02:00, Carl Fürstenberg wrote:
2010/9/21 Jérémy Lal je...@edagames.com:
I also contacted debian-hams to see if they'd mind changing this binary
name,
and the answer is clearly no [1].
[1]
http://lists.debian.org/debian-hams/2010/08/msg00031.html
i posted a reply yesterday to
Carl Fürstenberg writes (Re: Bug#597571: nodejs: non common executable name):
Policy only states The maintainers should report this to the
debian-devel mailing list and try to find a consensus about which
program will have to be renamed. If a consensus cannot be reached,
both programs must
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 01:48:03PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
Carl Fürstenberg writes (Re: Bug#597571: nodejs: non common executable
name):
Policy only states The maintainers should report this to the
debian-devel mailing list and try to find a consensus about which
program will have
On 21/09/2010 14:48, Ian Jackson wrote:
Carl Fürstenberg writes (Re: Bug#597571: nodejs: non common executable
name):
Policy only states The maintainers should report this to the
debian-devel mailing list and try to find a consensus about which
program will have to be renamed
Mehdi Dogguy writes (Re: Bug#597571: nodejs: non common executable name):
Wrong. nodejs still provides the binary nodejs and not _node_. So, nodejs can
stay as is. The rename would be necessary if both packages provide the
same binary (same filename), which is not the case here.
Sorry, when I
Note that i tried to warn upstream nodejs several months ago, but it was
already too late, so i renamed it to comply.
Please also note that nodejs runs (js) scripts, so the renaming means
each nodejs module[0] that may be packaged in the future,
and that provides executables, will need to be
On 21/09/2010 16:02, Patrick Ouellette wrote:
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 03:54:41PM +0200, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
Wrong. nodejs still provides the binary nodejs and not _node_. So,
nodejs can stay as is. The rename would be necessary if both
packages provide the same binary (same filename), which
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 03:54:41PM +0200, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
Wrong. nodejs still provides the binary nodejs and not _node_. So, nodejs can
stay as is. The rename would be necessary if both packages provide the
same binary (same filename), which is not the case here.
Actually, from the
On 21/09/2010 17:22, Patrick Ouellette wrote:
You are quick with the wrong button.
It's my new toy :)
The UPSTREAM nodejs is /usr/bin/node. The Debian package renamed it to
nodejs.
Did you say that before? I don't think so. Personally, I care about the
Debian package only because the
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 05:07:39PM +0200, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
On 21/09/2010 16:02, Patrick Ouellette wrote:
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 03:54:41PM +0200, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
Wrong. nodejs still provides the binary nodejs and not _node_. So,
nodejs can stay as is. The rename would be
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 05:26:30PM +0200, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
Did you say that before? I don't think so. Personally, I care about the
Debian package only because the original bugreport (from where this
discussion started) was against the Debian package and for a Debian
specificity, not about
2010/9/21 Jérémy Lal je...@edagames.com:
On 21/09/2010 01:31, Carl Fürstenberg wrote:
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 00:46, Jérémy Lal je...@edagames.com wrote:
On 21/09/2010 00:27, Carl Fürstenberg wrote:
Package: nodejs
Version: 0.2.2-1
Severity: normal
in debian, the executable name is set to
16 matches
Mail list logo
