Hi again, Some clarifications.
Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > Oh, I am confused now: Didn't you hint yourself that upstream might not > like it? > > Re-reading I now see that you wrote "...without a patch", Right, I think it is unlikely that upstream would be happy to see anyone asking them to work on this. With a patch I don't think it's a hard sell, given that it only amounts to adding a new synonym for a command and would save upstream from having to deal with people bringing it up again. :) > but still I > saw no indication from the mailinglist thread you referenced that > upstream will accept a patch. Ryan wrote | I want Node to have the executable name 'node'. The tone, if I understood correctly, was one of "why are you bothering me about this nonsense?". I agree with him --- removing the 'node' command would break compatibility for a large group of users and is a non-starter. I don't think that implies he won't like a patch adding a nodejs synonym. To be crystal clear: previously I might have mentioned that Debian policy requires removing the 'node' command to comply with Debian policy if the project cannot come to a consensus about what is to happen. If that's the only way to get the package in wheezy, fine. But that is not what this bug report is about. [...] > I can also easily follow an upstream finding it sensible to call some > daemon "node" and not (upstream) wanting to change it I don't think the ham radio tool node's upstream has weighed in at all, actually. Alas, ax25-node is undermaintained in Debian. It may be that their upstream won't mind the name change. Jonathan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
