From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Steve Kostecke Subject: Re: AX25 and related software's future in Debian Date: Fri, 04 May 2012 11:28:04 -0500 Message-ID: References: <20120504151424.GC24655@flying-gecko.net> Return-path: In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 04 May 2012 11:14:24 EDT." <20120504151424.GC24655@flying-gecko.net> Sender: linux-hams-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Patrick Ouellette Cc: Dan Smith , linux-hams@vger.kernel.org, debian-hams@lists.debian.org, ralf@linux-mips.org, ax25@x-berg.in-berlin.de Patrick Ouellette said: >Playing Devil's advocate - the argument has been put forth in the >"other discussion" that according to popcon (the Debian popularity >contest), node has 81 installs, and 17 reporting as "active" while the >nodejs package has 720 installs with 163 reporting as "active." So their >conclusion is the node package is only used by a small community. I've not had time to read that entire thread, but it seems to me that renaming well known binaries violates the Principle Of Least Astonishment. Has anyone considered making nodejs and ax25 conflict? That would be an easy way of sidestepping this entire namespace issue. -- Steve Kostecke