[Pkg-javascript-devel] Bug#650343: Bug#650343: Bug#650343: nodejs: please provide "nodejs" command as a synonym for node

[Jérémy Lal]

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.