On 28/04/2012 15:06, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > On 12-04-27 at 11:58pm, Jonathan Nieder wrote: >> Jonathan Nieder wrote: >> >>> On some machines /usr/sbin/node refers to some program that is not >>> the node.js interpreter. Therefore it would be helpful to have a >>> "nodejs" command that does exactly the same thing as /usr/bin/node, >>> for people to put into their scripts to reliably refer to the >>> node.js interpreter. >> >> The message [1] reminded me that this still wasn't finished. Oops. >> Sorry to be so slow. > > I saw this issue as one for us all to move on, not you alone. I just > personally feel very tired really quickly dealing politically entangled > stuff as I feel this one is. So I am very very happy that you had > another go at it - and am quite surprised with the elegantly tiny > approach you came up with: You really think that is acceptable for the > project? > > >> After rereading [2], I am a little afraid of bringing this up upstream >> without a patch. Unfortunately the build system scares me, too, so >> for now all I can offer is a patch against the Debian packaging. >> >> (Disclaimer: the following has nothing to do with Debian policy.) I >> genuinely think the best thing Debian could do in wheezy is: >> >> - provide Node.js as /usr/bin/node >> >> - provide LinuxNode as /usr/sbin/node >> >> - also provide unambiguous names (e.g., nodejs, ax25-node) for these >> commands, and use the unambiguous names in configuration and in >> other packages >> >> I also hope that upstream can understand that we are not trying to >> deny reality or to work against them but that it would be nice for >> googlability among other reasons to move to less generic names for >> these commands and avoid generic command names in the future. >> >> The name /usr/bin/nodejs seems to have some cross-distro support.[3] >> >> Thoughts? Improvements? > > As a symbolic move demonstrating that I at least support your effort, > I've now applied your proposed patch. > > @Jérémy: If you for some reason disagree, you are of course feel free to > revert it again. Point of my move here is that do not feel very > strongly about it (and in fact is a little embarrased about my role in > it, as I - ill-informed about these matters in Policy - convinced you > back when I got involved that it was no big deal, even if you'd already > prepared for a full rename), so just wanna help wherever I can.
No objection. I am not sure i understand what is planned here. Progressively and eventually rename ? Jérémy. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
