On 12-05-07 at 11:28pm, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sun, May 06, 2012 at 09:49:11PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
On 12-05-06 at 10:22am, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sat, May 05, 2012 at 03:07:27AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
We have until now maintained Nodejs only in unstable because
requests to rename axnode was met with either silence or refusal
with the reasoning that axnode was more widely used in Debian
than Nodejs.
Obviously Nodejs is not widely used in Debian when initially
packaged. So I've simply waited until it was really sensible to
make such comparison of popularity among the users of Debian.
Which seems to be the case now - even if still impaired by
Nodejs only offered to our users of unstable and experimental
Debian.
I find this response from you *very* disappointing. It implies
that you knew that you had a responsibility to rename the Nodejs
binary according to Policy, but that rather than acting in a
timely manner to persuade upstream of the importance of renaming,
you decided to wait until momentum was on your side so that you
could have an outcome in your favor.
No, that is not what it means. You are reading timings into it that
I did not write there, and you are reading those timings wrong!
Ok, sorry for the misunderstanding. That certainly is what I took
from your statement that you were waiting until it was sensible to
compare popularity, but it seems I misunderstood.
Your certainty is not flawed: That wasn't the detail you misunderstood.
I talked about waiting internally in Debian, you (in my understanding)
lectured me about relationship with upstream.
- Jonas
--
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
[x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
