vorlon at debian.org
Sun May 6 17:29:18 UTC 2012
On Sat, May 05, 2012 at 08:29:40AM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
> How about doing the following:
> node package replaced by a node-legacy package that contains no more
> than a README and a symlink node --> ax25-node, and depends on
As mentioned by Carsten Hey on debian-ctte, we should certainly keep the
same binary package name ('node') to ensure smooth upgrades for users that
already have it installed.
> ax25-node package, which contains what node does now, with the binary
> nodejs package replaced by a node.js-legacy (or a better name if there
> is one) package that contains no more than a README and a symlink node
> --> node.js (or whatever), and depends on node.js
> node.js package that is the nodejs package with a renamed binary.
> and make node-legacy and node.js-legacy conflict.
Because Node.js is a scripting interpreter, I believe there's no point in
trying to declare the package on the nodejs side 'legacy' unless there's a
committment from upstream to deprecate the /usr/bin/node name.
So from my perspective, the packages would be:
-- /usr/sbin/node -> /usr/sbin/ax25-node
-- /usr/bin/node -> /usr/bin/nodejs
> So this would need package replacement, which is a pain, and an
> exception for a policy violation -- is that enough to kill the idea?
I think it's an acceptable compromise under the circumstances.
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/
slangasek at ubuntu.com vorlon at debian.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 828 bytes
Desc: Digital signature