Bug#862051: nodejs (6.11.2~dfsg-1) experimental; urgency=medium

2017-09-01 Thread Tollef Fog Heen 
]] Didier 'OdyX' Raboud 

> There are _plenty_ of changes that one needs to care about in a stable 
> upgrade: things like mandatory postfixing of Apache configuration files, 
> removal 
> of specific Python3 versions, removal of upstart, etc. Having to change a 
> shebang isn't a big deal given the amount of things one has to check accross 
> a 
> stable release upgrade.

You might quite reasonably write scripts in node and either store them
in a shared directory across multiple Debian versions or have ~/bin in
version control shared across multiple Debian installations (and
corresponding versions).

#! lines are a bit special in this regard.

-- 
Tollef Fog Heen
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are

Bug#862051: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Bug#754462: Bug#754462: Bug#862051: nodejs (6.11.2~dfsg-1) experimental; urgency=medium

2017-09-01 Thread Bastien Roucaries 


Le 1 septembre 2017 14:16:14 GMT+02:00, Mattia Rizzolo  a 
écrit :
>On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 11:41:36AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> One thing you I would consider is that it would be nice if scripts in
>> Debian packages were made more portable to other distros.  So Debian
>> packages should gradually change to use /usr/bin/node.  I am very
>> conservative about these things because I like to keep backporting
>> (within Debian) as easy as possible.  So if I were the maintainer of
>a
>> node.js package which had scripts mentioning /usr/bin/nodejs, I would
>> probably make that change in buster+1 rather than in buster.
>
>It's enough to depend on
>nodejs (>= 6.11.2~dfsg-1) | nodejs-legacy
>And then you can backport it to whatever debian release you like the
>most.
>
>> In buster+1 you should probably consider asking for a lintian warning
>> about references to /usr/bin/nodejs.  Not because you intend to drop
>> /usr/bin/nodejs ever (why do that - see previous emails) but because
>> it would be better, as I've just discussed, for Debian packages to
>> contain fewer hurdles to adoption elsewhere.
>
>That's already done.
>https://anonscm.debian.org/git/lintian/lintian.git/commit/?id=4ea7bdf953e1fb23bfc85830ad743efaf0ad0373
>https://anonscm.debian.org/git/lintian/lintian.git/commit/?id=7d0c0732e792cf0a0cadeb583c9878463813e24a
>(will be in the next lintian release)


Please also parse autopkgtest like require ans dix npm2deb

-- 
Envoyé de mon appareil Android avec K-9 Mail. Veuillez excuser ma brièveté.

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Bug#754462: Bug#862051: nodejs (6.11.2~dfsg-1) experimental; urgency=medium

2017-09-01 Thread Mattia Rizzolo 
On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 11:41:36AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> One thing you I would consider is that it would be nice if scripts in
> Debian packages were made more portable to other distros.  So Debian
> packages should gradually change to use /usr/bin/node.  I am very
> conservative about these things because I like to keep backporting
> (within Debian) as easy as possible.  So if I were the maintainer of a
> node.js package which had scripts mentioning /usr/bin/nodejs, I would
> probably make that change in buster+1 rather than in buster.

It's enough to depend on
nodejs (>= 6.11.2~dfsg-1) | nodejs-legacy
And then you can backport it to whatever debian release you like the
most.

> In buster+1 you should probably consider asking for a lintian warning
> about references to /usr/bin/nodejs.  Not because you intend to drop
> /usr/bin/nodejs ever (why do that - see previous emails) but because
> it would be better, as I've just discussed, for Debian packages to
> contain fewer hurdles to adoption elsewhere.

That's already done.
https://anonscm.debian.org/git/lintian/lintian.git/commit/?id=4ea7bdf953e1fb23bfc85830ad743efaf0ad0373
https://anonscm.debian.org/git/lintian/lintian.git/commit/?id=7d0c0732e792cf0a0cadeb583c9878463813e24a
(will be in the next lintian release)

-- 
regards,
Mattia Rizzolo

GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18  4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540  .''`.
more about me:  https://mapreri.org : :'  :
Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri  `. `'`
Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia  `-


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Bug#754462: Bug#862051: nodejs (6.11.2~dfsg-1) experimental; urgency=medium

2017-09-01 Thread Ian Jackson 
Jérémy Lal writes ("Re: Bug#754462: Bug#862051: nodejs (6.11.2~dfsg-1) 
experimental; urgency=medium"):
> So, a short NEWS entry explaining /usr/bin/node is now available by default,
> and that /usr/bin/nodejs will stay available indefinitely ?
> Or even nothing and just a changelog entry ?

I would go for the latter, personally.

My philosophy is that a NEWS entry is something you use when people
have to change something.  The best packages do not need NEWS entries
because they simply keep working.  Starting to provide /usr/bin/node
and keeping /usr/bin/nodejs means that no-one has to change anything,
which is perfect - and therefore we don't need to bother users.

It's true that NEWS might be used when a new opportunity arises that
means many users might want to change something, even though they
don't have to.  I would reserve that for situations where the user's
existing setup is (likely to be) hazardous or seriously suboptimal,
especially in a non-obvious way.

Existing scripts that use /usr/bin/nodejs are not as portable to other
OSes as they could be, but of course the script's author will probably
be aware of that already.  It doesn't seem to me to be the kind of
opportunity for remedying a significant defect that would warrant a
NEWS entry.

However:

One thing you I would consider is that it would be nice if scripts in
Debian packages were made more portable to other distros.  So Debian
packages should gradually change to use /usr/bin/node.  I am very
conservative about these things because I like to keep backporting
(within Debian) as easy as possible.  So if I were the maintainer of a
node.js package which had scripts mentioning /usr/bin/nodejs, I would
probably make that change in buster+1 rather than in buster.

In buster+1 you should probably consider asking for a lintian warning
about references to /usr/bin/nodejs.  Not because you intend to drop
/usr/bin/nodejs ever (why do that - see previous emails) but because
it would be better, as I've just discussed, for Debian packages to
contain fewer hurdles to adoption elsewhere.

Regards,
Ian.

-- 
Ian Jackson    These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.

Re: Bug#862051: nodejs (6.11.2~dfsg-1) experimental; urgency=medium

2017-09-01 Thread Dominique Dumont 
On Thursday, 31 August 2017 13:08:58 CEST Sam Hartman wrote:
> There are cases where people mix stderr and stdout.  There are cases
> where people treat any unexpected output on stderr as a failure in
> automated scripts.

I rest my case. Thanks for the explanation. :-)

All the best

Re: Bug#754462: Bug#862051: nodejs (6.11.2~dfsg-1) experimental; urgency=medium

2017-09-01 Thread Jérémy Lal 
2017-08-31 19:08 GMT+02:00 Sam Hartman :

> > "Dominique" == Dominique Dumont  writes:
>
> Dominique> On Thursday, 31 August 2017 13:58:23 CEST Thorsten Glaser
> wrote:
> >> > How about printing a "nice" warning explaining it would be a
> >> good idea to > move to /usr/bin/node ?
> >>
> >> That will break scripts that do:
> >>
> >> x=$(nodejs somescript)
>
> Dominique> This kind of script won't break if the deprecation
> Dominique> warning is sent to STDERR
>
>
> Sigh.
> I wish I had seen your message before your earlier reply.
> This breaks too in more complex situations involving ssh, things like
> expect scripts and the like.
> There are cases where people mix stderr and stdout.  There are cases
> where people treat any unexpected output on stderr as a failure in
> automated scripts.
>
> The next level you can look at is considering whether /dev/stdin in a
> tty and printing the warning to either stderr or /dev/tty only in that
> case.
> And that will reduce the breakage but not remove it.
> And yes, when you actually have something it's important to deprecate,
> accepting some level of breakage and adopting one of those strategies is
> the right thing.
>
> It's just not worth it in this case.
> People who use more than Debian are very quickly going to learn that
> /usr/bin/node is preferred to /usr/bin/nodejs.
> As several people have already pointed out we've far exceeded the amount
> of effort in considering whether to deprecate or remove the link that
> will be spent maintaining the link until the end of time.
> In one sense we've already lost:-)
>

So, a short NEWS entry explaining /usr/bin/node is now available by default,
and that /usr/bin/nodejs will stay available indefinitely ?
Or even nothing and just a changelog entry ?

Jérémy