[Pkg-javascript-devel] nodejs-legacy rename

[Jérémy Lal]

2016-02-27 15:11 GMT+01:00 Jonas Smedegaard <dr at jones.dk>:

> Quoting Jérémy Lal (2016-02-27 14:40:50)
> > 2016-02-27 13:16 GMT+01:00 Jonas Smedegaard <dr at jones.dk>:
> >> Quoting Jérémy Lal (2016-02-27 10:25:44)
> >>> no newcomers ever find out that nodejs-legacy provides the
> >>> nodejs -> node
> >>> symlink.
> >>>
> >>> It is probably because the name of this package is badly chosen. Any
> >>> suggestion ?
> >>>
> >>> nodejs-symlink-node ?
> >>
> >> I find the package name descriptive: It accurately frames the _main_
> >> trait of that package which is that it is for _legacy_ use only.
> >>
> >
> > "legacy" can only be understood if one knows that it refers to the
> > fact it was renamed.
>
> The place to expand on the meaning of a package name is package
> description(s - short and long) - not package name itself.
>
>
> > This leads to users manually adding the symlink,
>
> I strongly disagree: What leads to users manually adding a symlink is
> *not* a bad choice of package name, but instead the underlying reason
> for the package existing at all: Debian choosing to rename the binary.
>
> Those manually adding a symlink probably follow advice from people
> disagreeing with the Debian naming of the binary, and therefore from
> people unlikely to change their advice based on some package rename.
>

I disagree with your opinion: you see malice where i see ignorance, read for
example
https://github.com/santinic/how2/issues/24#issuecomment-189619467

Though it's true that i could ask for a bit more nodejs upstream
documentation.

- Jérémy
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-javascript-devel/attachments/20160227/f4161678/attachment.html>