On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 10:54:24AM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > On Mon, 07 Feb 2011, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > > The LinuxNode project > > --------------------- > > The other is a frontend to libax25, an AX.25 implementation for Linux. > > Hardware implementations of AX.25 are apparently called "terminal node > > controllers" or "nodes" for short; hence this Linux-based > > implementation was called LinuxNode and its binary called "node". It > > was introduced in January, 1996. It seems that its family tree also > > includes (unpackaged) implementations named AWZNode and FlexNode. > > 1996 was a long time ago, the world was much smaller back then. It was > still a very very poor choice of naming, and it should have been named > ax25node from day one.
Similar AX.25 tools "call" and "listen" were renamed in 2007 to ax* (package ax25-apps), because those names were too generic (according to the changelog). I think renaming the node binary to axnode is reasonable and consistent with this, but I don't think the nodejs program should be using that name either. > If push comes to shove, nobody is going to try to force _them_ to give > up that name. You can get the package itself renamed to ax25node, and > have the required "node" transitional package in squeeze+1, so as to > have no "node" package in squeeze+2, but rename the executable itself? > not likely. We did it with call and listen, both used from the command line more frequently, so it's not out of the question. > 4. as the one with the weaker claim, node.js can move its executable out > of the generic namespace or rename its executable to something else. I think it should do that anyway. Hamish -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110208230458.ga23...@risingsoftware.com
