On 0, Carl Fürstenberg wrote:
> > So for now, i guess conflicting with "node" package is the only alternative.
> > However, i doubt it will be accepted. Do this reason for a conflict have
> > already
> > been accepted in the archive ?
> >
No. In this case, the two binaries have completly differ
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 00:46, Jérémy Lal wrote:
> On 21/09/2010 00:27, Carl Fürstenberg wrote:
>> Package: nodejs
>> Version: 0.2.2-1
>> Severity: normal
>>
>> in debian, the executable name is set to "nodejs"; this seems to be
>> really uncommon out in the wild, where it's assumed it's called "n
On 21/09/2010 00:27, Carl Fürstenberg wrote:
> Package: nodejs
> Version: 0.2.2-1
> Severity: normal
>
> in debian, the executable name is set to "nodejs"; this seems to be
> really uncommon out in the wild, where it's assumed it's called "node"
> for short.
>
> Unless there is a compelling reaso
Package: nodejs
Version: 0.2.2-1
Severity: normal
in debian, the executable name is set to "nodejs"; this seems to be
really uncommon out in the wild, where it's assumed it's called "node"
for short.
Unless there is a compelling reason for sticking with the name "nodejs",
I would want the package
4 matches
Mail list logo
