Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Node.js and it's future in debian
OoO Pendant le journal télévisé du lundi 07 mai 2012, vers 20:41, Philip Hands p...@hands.com disait : Package: node Depends: ax25-node Conflicts: nodejs -- /usr/sbin/node - /usr/sbin/ax25-node Package: ax25-node -- /usr/sbin/ax25-node Package: nodejs Conflicts: node -- /usr/bin/nodejs -- /usr/bin/node - /usr/bin/nodejs So this would need package replacement, which is a pain, and an exception for a policy violation -- is that enough to kill the idea? I think it's an acceptable compromise under the circumstances. This seems a little one-sided, as it inflicts the bulk of the work on those that are less to blame. I don't see the point to perfect symmetry: nodejs contains an interpreter while ax25-node contains a daemon and will work out of the box for most people (those that don't need custom scripts). My point is that nodejs without /usr/bin/node is useless. It also prevents a HAM from deciding to dabble in Node.js while preserving the 'node' name for their ax25 use. For this point only: Package: nodejs Depends: nodejs-interpreter Conflicts: node -- /usr/bin/node - /usr/bin/nodejs Package: nodejs-interpreter -- /usr/bin/nodejs But one additional package for people we are not even sure they exist... I don't really see the point of adding the symlink to nodejs if you're not putting it in a separate package -- one of the reasons I had for doing that split was that it might allow us to later provide popcon stats of the proportion's of node.js users that install the symlink package as part of evidence to persuade upstream that it might be worth entertaining a better binary name -- having them both in the same package discards that information. I doubt that upstream will rename anything after years of use. Upstream also has a community to please. And popcon may just be an indication on the number of our users that are pissed enough to install from source because installing nodejs package did not deliver the right command. -- Vincent Bernat ☯ http://vincent.bernat.im printk(KERN_ERR msp3400: chip reset failed, penguin on i2c bus?\n); 2.2.16 /usr/src/linux/drivers/char/msp3400.c pgph3qWiNffw1.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Node.js and it's future in debian
On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 12:41:40PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote: David Weinehall t...@debian.org writes: Wasn't the main reason (apart from the seniority argument) for preserving the node name for ax25 to prevent remote unmonitored highly important systems from failing? If such systems are highly important, should we accomodate them remaining unmonitored? Surely if they are unmonitored, then they are not considered sufficiently important to monitor. So “highly important” ceases to carry any weight in such cases. No? The systems are not unmonitored they are physically difficult to access. One of the tools used to monitor them is connecting to them with the node application. Pat -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120508160953.gb28...@flying-gecko.net
Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Node.js and it's future in debian
On Sun, 6 May 2012 10:29:18 -0700, Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote:
On Sat, May 05, 2012 at 08:29:40AM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
How about doing the following:
node package replaced by a node-legacy package that contains no more
than a README and a symlink node -- ax25-node, and depends on
ax25-node
As mentioned by Carsten Hey on debian-ctte, we should certainly keep the
same binary package name ('node') to ensure smooth upgrades for users that
already have it installed.
ax25-node package, which contains what node does now, with the binary
renamed
nodejs package replaced by a node.js-legacy (or a better name if there
is one) package that contains no more than a README and a symlink node
-- node.js (or whatever), and depends on node.js
node.js package that is the nodejs package with a renamed binary.
and make node-legacy and node.js-legacy conflict.
Because Node.js is a scripting interpreter, I believe there's no point in
trying to declare the package on the nodejs side 'legacy' unless there's a
committment from upstream to deprecate the /usr/bin/node name.
So from my perspective, the packages would be:
Package: node
Depends: ax25-node
Conflicts: nodejs
-- /usr/sbin/node - /usr/sbin/ax25-node
Package: ax25-node
-- /usr/sbin/ax25-node
Package: nodejs
Conflicts: node
-- /usr/bin/nodejs
-- /usr/bin/node - /usr/bin/nodejs
So this would need package replacement, which is a pain, and an
exception for a policy violation -- is that enough to kill the idea?
I think it's an acceptable compromise under the circumstances.
This seems a little one-sided, as it inflicts the bulk of the work on
those that are less to blame.
It also prevents a HAM from deciding to dabble in Node.js while
preserving the 'node' name for their ax25 use.
I suppose if the ax25 maintainers think that this counts as a
compromise, that's up to them, but I actually rejected something very
similar to this while I was formulating my suggestion on the basis that
it lacks symmetry and so seems unfair.
I don't really see the point of adding the symlink to nodejs if you're
not putting it in a separate package -- one of the reasons I had for
doing that split was that it might allow us to later provide popcon
stats of the proportion's of node.js users that install the symlink
package as part of evidence to persuade upstream that it might be worth
entertaining a better binary name -- having them both in the same
package discards that information.
It also fails to draw people's attention to the problem as much as the
dual use of -legacy named packages -- N.B. I wasn't expecting those
packages to be retired quickly (or perhaps ever). The -legacy was meant
to be an attention grabber, and perhaps to reflect a hope that at some
point in the future one or both upstreams might switch to a better name.
It occurs to me that if we're going to allow this form of
conflicts-abuse, we should also insist that no dependencies are allowed
on the conflicting packages, to ensure that only the distinct binary
names are available for depending packages.
If we accept that restriction, then you'd want there to be a separate
package for the Node.js symlink, as otherwise no package would be able
to declare a dependency on Node.js, which would be inconvenient.
Cheers, Phil.
--
|)| Philip Hands [+44 (0)20 8530 9560]http://www.hands.com/
|-| HANDS.COM Ltd.http://www.uk.debian.org/
|(| 10 Onslow Gardens, South Woodford, London E18 1NE ENGLAND
pgpK6zIP5aAgO.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Node.js and it's future in debian
On 07/05/12 19:41, Philip Hands wrote: The -legacy was meant to be an attention grabber, and perhaps to reflect a hope that at some point in the future one or both upstreams might switch to a better name. I think legacy is rather misleading, since its upstream (unfortunately) doesn't think there's anything legacy about that name. nodejs-node? nodejs-compat? nodejs-namespace-grab? It occurs to me that if we're going to allow this form of conflicts-abuse, we should also insist that no dependencies are allowed on the conflicting packages, to ensure that only the distinct binary names are available for depending packages. That sounds like a reasonable principle for cases like this where installing the packages together makes sense (as opposed to packages that Provide/Conflict over a common interface, like MTAs). S -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4fa8207c.20...@debian.org
Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Node.js and it's future in debian
On Mon, May 07, 2012 at 07:41:33PM +0100, Philip Hands wrote: [snip] It also prevents a HAM from deciding to dabble in Node.js while preserving the 'node' name for their ax25 use. Wasn't the main reason (apart from the seniority argument) for preserving the node name for ax25 to prevent remote unmonitored highly important systems from failing? Surely such systems are not quite candidates for dabbling with Node.js on... That said, there's no way we can solve this in a clean way. No matter what solution is chosen in the end someone will suffer from it. No matter who wins, the users lose :S And I don't blame the Debian maintainers of either package. I think that the upstream for Node.js should've done their homework a bit better though, and that the ax25 upstream should've had a bit more imagination. But shit happened already. Regards: David -- /) David Weinehall t...@debian.org /) Rime on my window (\ // ~ // Diamond-white roses of fire // \) http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/(/ Beautiful hoar-frost (/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120507201039.gd10...@suiko.acc.umu.se
Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Node.js and it's future in debian
David Weinehall t...@debian.org writes: Wasn't the main reason (apart from the seniority argument) for preserving the node name for ax25 to prevent remote unmonitored highly important systems from failing? If such systems are highly important, should we accomodate them remaining unmonitored? Surely if they are unmonitored, then they are not considered sufficiently important to monitor. So “highly important” ceases to carry any weight in such cases. No? -- \ “The generation of random numbers is too important to be left | `\to chance.” —Robert R. Coveyou | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87k40n75sr@benfinney.id.au
Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Node.js and it's future in debian
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, Le 05/05/12 09:29, Philip Hands a écrit : On Fri, 4 May 2012 19:00:10 +0200, Pau Garcia i Quiles pgqui...@elpauer.org wrote: ... Agreed. That's why my proposal was that *all* of those (Debian, Fedora, Suse, MacPorts and brew) did the rename, not just us (Debian). It's certainly not nice to push upstream to do something they don't want to do, but when upstream is not doing their due diligence... As a lapsed HAM who's not transmitted anything for about 20 years, and someone vaguely aware of node.js, I feel relatively unbiased about this. I'm just an unbiased reader of Debian devel, I don't care for either package (but I care for Debian). Your proposal seems very sane to me. How about doing the following: node package replaced by a node-legacy package that contains no more than a README and a symlink node -- ax25-node, and depends on ax25-node ax25-node package, which contains what node does now, with the binary renamed In addition, node-legacy could Provide node, so that it is installed on system upgrade for systems where it was there before, with an explanation that this package is for transition purpose and the implications of removing it. [...] So this would need package replacement, which is a pain, and an exception for a policy violation -- is that enough to kill the idea? As I understand it, Policy is broken here: if the two binaries where installed in /usr/bin, it would be fine (Policy-wise) to Conflict. We have here a rare (hopefully) instance where the conflicting command name are not file conflicts, which just happens to be badly handled by policy. Regards, Thibaut. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk+mRFUACgkQ+37NkUuUiPGwcgCeNr1mPo3+dIlx3SE02jY7bNXj 6/oAn12ubOx94mneghPABCuQeKisi3L3 =SNV0 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4fa64455.7020...@users.sourceforge.net
Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Node.js and it's future in debian
Thibaut Paumard paum...@users.sourceforge.net writes: As I understand it, Policy is broken here: if the two binaries where installed in /usr/bin, it would be fine (Policy-wise) to Conflict. Our current Policy specifically prohibits that. See Policy 10.1: Two different packages must not install programs with different functionality but with the same filenames. (The case of two programs having the same functionality but different implementations is handled via alternatives or the Conflicts mechanism. See Maintainer Scripts, Section 3.9 and Conflicting binary packages - Conflicts, Section 7.4 respectively.) If this case happens, one of the programs must be renamed. The maintainers should report this to the debian-devel mailing list and try to find a consensus about which program will have to be renamed. If a consensus cannot be reached, both programs must be renamed. If there's a gap in Policy, it's actually around the current situation where the two binaries don't have the same paths, since it's not clear what Policy means by filename. But it's pretty obvious that the intent of Policy is also to prohibit binaries with different functionality in sbin and bin, given how unstable of a situation that creates with varying PATH. Now, that certainly doesn't rule out the sorts of solutions we're talking about. As I mentioned elsewhere, the point of Policy is to make the system usable, not to have packages follow Policy just for their own sake. If we come up with a better way of solving this situation that requires an exception to Policy for transitional or compatibility packages, I think that's fine. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87vck9cfb6@windlord.stanford.edu
Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Node.js and it's future in debian
On Sat, May 05, 2012 at 08:29:40AM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
How about doing the following:
node package replaced by a node-legacy package that contains no more
than a README and a symlink node -- ax25-node, and depends on
ax25-node
As mentioned by Carsten Hey on debian-ctte, we should certainly keep the
same binary package name ('node') to ensure smooth upgrades for users that
already have it installed.
ax25-node package, which contains what node does now, with the binary
renamed
nodejs package replaced by a node.js-legacy (or a better name if there
is one) package that contains no more than a README and a symlink node
-- node.js (or whatever), and depends on node.js
node.js package that is the nodejs package with a renamed binary.
and make node-legacy and node.js-legacy conflict.
Because Node.js is a scripting interpreter, I believe there's no point in
trying to declare the package on the nodejs side 'legacy' unless there's a
committment from upstream to deprecate the /usr/bin/node name.
So from my perspective, the packages would be:
Package: node
Depends: ax25-node
Conflicts: nodejs
-- /usr/sbin/node - /usr/sbin/ax25-node
Package: ax25-node
-- /usr/sbin/ax25-node
Package: nodejs
Conflicts: node
-- /usr/bin/nodejs
-- /usr/bin/node - /usr/bin/nodejs
So this would need package replacement, which is a pain, and an
exception for a policy violation -- is that enough to kill the idea?
I think it's an acceptable compromise under the circumstances.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Node.js and it's future in debian
On Sat, May 05, 2012 at 03:07:27AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: We have until now maintained Nodejs only in unstable because requests to rename axnode was met with either silence or refusal with the reasoning that axnode was more widely used in Debian than Nodejs. Obviously Nodejs is not widely used in Debian when initially packaged. So I've simply waited until it was really sensible to make such comparison of popularity among the users of Debian. Which seems to be the case now - even if still impaired by Nodejs only offered to our users of unstable and experimental Debian. I find this response from you *very* disappointing. It implies that you knew that you had a responsibility to rename the Nodejs binary according to Policy, but that rather than acting in a timely manner to persuade upstream of the importance of renaming, you decided to wait until momentum was on your side so that you could have an outcome in your favor. My understanding is that Node.js is a three-year-old project, and that the namespace issue was first raised upstream at least a year and a half ago. We would have been in a much better position to resolve this in a manner that does right by our existing ham community if you had lived up to your moral obligations as a Debian developer *then* instead of letting the issue fester. 'node' is a stupid name for a program, and this should have been impressed upon Node.js upstream early and often. We would have been in a position, together with other distributions, to force a sensible upstream name. I believe we no longer are in a position to do so, and even if we did, the transition now would be many times more disruptive for users than if this had been dealt with in 2010. If Debian is frozen tomorrow, then Nodejs will not be part of it, for the very reason that I *did* respect Policy. It may not be part of the release, but it will still be a mess for everyone involved. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Node.js and it's future in debian
Greetings, dear Debian developer, [replying via bugreport as I am not subscribed to tech-ctte@d.o] On 12-05-06 at 10:22am, Steve Langasek wrote: On Sat, May 05, 2012 at 03:07:27AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: We have until now maintained Nodejs only in unstable because requests to rename axnode was met with either silence or refusal with the reasoning that axnode was more widely used in Debian than Nodejs. Obviously Nodejs is not widely used in Debian when initially packaged. So I've simply waited until it was really sensible to make such comparison of popularity among the users of Debian. Which seems to be the case now - even if still impaired by Nodejs only offered to our users of unstable and experimental Debian. I find this response from you *very* disappointing. It implies that you knew that you had a responsibility to rename the Nodejs binary according to Policy, but that rather than acting in a timely manner to persuade upstream of the importance of renaming, you decided to wait until momentum was on your side so that you could have an outcome in your favor. No, that is not what it means. You are reading timings into it that I did not write there, and you are reading those timings wrong! My understanding is that Node.js is a three-year-old project, and that the namespace issue was first raised upstream at least a year and a half ago. We would have been in a much better position to resolve this in a manner that does right by our existing ham community if you had lived up to your moral obligations as a Debian developer *then* instead of letting the issue fester. Your moral obligation, before throwing accusations like that, is to at least investigate the issue, and ideally first asking nicely. You can read from nodejs packaging changelog and git commits when I got involved in the maintainance, and you can read from bugreports and mailinglists how my fellow maintainer, Jérémy Lal, conducted those moral obligations which you claim that I should've done before I even knew what node meant. 'node' is a stupid name for a program, and this should have been impressed upon Node.js upstream early and often. We would have been in a position, together with other distributions, to force a sensible upstream name. I believe we no longer are in a position to do so, and even if we did, the transition now would be many times more disruptive for users than if this had been dealt with in 2010. If Debian is frozen tomorrow, then Nodejs will not be part of it, for the very reason that I *did* respect Policy. It may not be part of the release, but it will still be a mess for everyone involved. Thanks to stpid actions by people not doing their homework, yes. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Node.js and it's future in debian
Le dimanche 6 mai 2012 21:49:11, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit : Greetings, dear Debian developer, [replying via bugreport as I am not subscribed to tech-ctte@d.o] On 12-05-06 at 10:22am, Steve Langasek wrote: On Sat, May 05, 2012 at 03:07:27AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: We have until now maintained Nodejs only in unstable because requests to rename axnode was met with either silence or refusal with the reasoning that axnode was more widely used in Debian than Nodejs. Obviously Nodejs is not widely used in Debian when initially packaged. So I've simply waited until it was really sensible to make such comparison of popularity among the users of Debian. Which seems to be the case now - even if still impaired by Nodejs only offered to our users of unstable and experimental Debian. I find this response from you *very* disappointing. It implies that you knew that you had a responsibility to rename the Nodejs binary according to Policy, but that rather than acting in a timely manner to persuade upstream of the importance of renaming, you decided to wait until momentum was on your side so that you could have an outcome in your favor. No, that is not what it means. You are reading timings into it that I did not write there, and you are reading those timings wrong! I believe the writing was just misleading and Steve just misunderstood it. I understood the same myself and I don't think I have any a priori on this since I am not at all involved. I believe this feeling come from the sentence I've simply waiting until it was really sensible to make such a comparison of popularity. So let's just assume it was a misunderstanding and go back to technical argument in order to avoid this discussion to become too heated. My understanding is that Node.js is a three-year-old project, and that the namespace issue was first raised upstream at least a year and a half ago. We would have been in a much better position to resolve this in a manner that does right by our existing ham community if you had lived up to your moral obligations as a Debian developer *then* instead of letting the issue fester. Your moral obligation, before throwing accusations like that, is to at least investigate the issue, and ideally first asking nicely. You can read from nodejs packaging changelog and git commits when I got involved in the maintainance, and you can read from bugreports and mailinglists how my fellow maintainer, Jérémy Lal, conducted those moral obligations which you claim that I should've done before I even knew what node meant. 'node' is a stupid name for a program, and this should have been impressed upon Node.js upstream early and often. We would have been in a position, together with other distributions, to force a sensible upstream name. I believe we no longer are in a position to do so, and even if we did, the transition now would be many times more disruptive for users than if this had been dealt with in 2010. If Debian is frozen tomorrow, then Nodejs will not be part of it, for the very reason that I *did* respect Policy. It may not be part of the release, but it will still be a mess for everyone involved. Thanks to stpid actions by people not doing their homework, yes. - Jonas Best regards, Thomas Preud'homme signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Node.js and it's future in debian
On 12-05-06 at 11:00pm, Thomas Preud'homme wrote: Le dimanche 6 mai 2012 21:49:11, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit : Greetings, dear Debian developer, [replying via bugreport as I am not subscribed to tech-ctte@d.o] On 12-05-06 at 10:22am, Steve Langasek wrote: On Sat, May 05, 2012 at 03:07:27AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: We have until now maintained Nodejs only in unstable because requests to rename axnode was met with either silence or refusal with the reasoning that axnode was more widely used in Debian than Nodejs. Obviously Nodejs is not widely used in Debian when initially packaged. So I've simply waited until it was really sensible to make such comparison of popularity among the users of Debian. Which seems to be the case now - even if still impaired by Nodejs only offered to our users of unstable and experimental Debian. I find this response from you *very* disappointing. It implies that you knew that you had a responsibility to rename the Nodejs binary according to Policy, but that rather than acting in a timely manner to persuade upstream of the importance of renaming, you decided to wait until momentum was on your side so that you could have an outcome in your favor. No, that is not what it means. You are reading timings into it that I did not write there, and you are reading those timings wrong! I believe the writing was just misleading and Steve just misunderstood it. I understood the same myself and I don't think I have any a priori on this since I am not at all involved. I believe this feeling come from the sentence I've simply waiting until it was really sensible to make such a comparison of popularity. So let's just assume it was a misunderstanding and go back to technical argument in order to avoid this discussion to become too heated. I am perfectly calm :-) My understanding is that Node.js is a three-year-old project, and that the namespace issue was first raised upstream at least a year and a half ago. We would have been in a much better position to resolve this in a manner that does right by our existing ham community if you had lived up to your moral obligations as a Debian developer *then* instead of letting the issue fester. Your moral obligation, before throwing accusations like that, is to at least investigate the issue, and ideally first asking nicely. ...but even when calm, I do not approve of a fellow developer patronizing me like that. If _that_ can be the last word on this little sidestep, I am fine that we all move on with the technical discussion. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Node.js and it's future in debian
On Fri, 4 May 2012 19:00:10 +0200, Pau Garcia i Quiles pgqui...@elpauer.org wrote: ... Agreed. That's why my proposal was that *all* of those (Debian, Fedora, Suse, MacPorts and brew) did the rename, not just us (Debian). It's certainly not nice to push upstream to do something they don't want to do, but when upstream is not doing their due diligence... As a lapsed HAM who's not transmitted anything for about 20 years, and someone vaguely aware of node.js, I feel relatively unbiased about this. How about doing the following: node package replaced by a node-legacy package that contains no more than a README and a symlink node -- ax25-node, and depends on ax25-node ax25-node package, which contains what node does now, with the binary renamed nodejs package replaced by a node.js-legacy (or a better name if there is one) package that contains no more than a README and a symlink node -- node.js (or whatever), and depends on node.js node.js package that is the nodejs package with a renamed binary. and make node-legacy and node.js-legacy conflict. The problems with this would seem to be the potential pain of renaming packages, and the fact that using conflicts like that is a policy violation -- could we perhaps make an exception for a case like this on the basis that the package descriptions could spell out why the conflict is there. The result would be that either camp can install the -legacy package and carry on unaffected, and anyone that needs both simply avoids the -legacy packages, and fixes any hard-coded paths on their system, which they'll know to do because they'll be a (probably more cluefull than average) combined HAM and Node.js user who's been pointed at the READMEs by the conflict and the package descriptions. The -legacy naming will apply a gentle pressure to just use the real packages, which will leave the door open to upstreams to see the light and change their default name, but not so much pressure that they'll get upset about it. The READMEs of all the packages could refer to why this was done, and how to get what you want depending one which of the various permutations of behaviours you want. So this would need package replacement, which is a pain, and an exception for a policy violation -- is that enough to kill the idea? Cheers, Phil. -- |)| Philip Hands [+44 (0)20 8530 9560]http://www.hands.com/ |-| HANDS.COM Ltd.http://www.uk.debian.org/ |(| 10 Onslow Gardens, South Woodford, London E18 1NE ENGLAND pgp6pmjLaSL3o.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Node.js and it's future in debian
Le Thu, May 03, 2012 at 12:39:04PM -0400, Joey Hess a écrit : Consider a package that contains a node.js script, which is not the primary purpose of the package. So it Recommends, rather than depends on nodejs. (Let's assume it uses #!/usr/bin/env node, and for the sake of example is something root might run, so /usr/sbin could be in PATH.) Using Conflicts makes this script behave very unfortunatly in certian circumstances. If some third package came along and added another node binary, and conflicted with node.js, we would probably call that package RC buggy, as it breaks unrelated software. So, having conflicting packages of this sort makes using Recommends, or even Suggests, a minefield, and should be avoided. This is a good point, but on the other hand there is the alternative conclusion that it argues for using Depends instead of Recommends, or moving the script out of the default path. If the program were not a script but a binary that is linked to a library, I think it would be considered to be a bug to only recommend that library even if the program is not important. Dependance on an interpreter is not that different. While the scenario for breakage that you gave is quite a corner case, the general situation, to have in a package some accessory programs for which we are reluctant to depend on everything they need (python, ruby, etc.), is quite frequent. I would welcome some guidelines here. Perhaps we are too shy creating accessory packages that contain only a few files ? I do not remember seeing a quantitative evaluation of what is the cost of adding a small package to the pool. Cheers, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120504140912.gb8...@falafel.plessy.net
Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Node.js and it's future in debian
On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 6:53 PM, Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote: Hi Pau, On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 04:24:21PM +0200, Pau Garcia i Quiles wrote: Regarding the often-mentioned many users run 'node script' from the command-line... so what? If we can get enough distributions (Debian, Suse, Fedora, MacPorts and brew would likely be enough) to rename the node.js binary, upstream will be forced to change from /usr/bin/node to /usr/bin/nodejs Compare this with ruby, where the outcome of Debian diverging from upstream was that the large and vocal upstream community shouted from the rooftops that our packages were broken and should never be used, until eventually (AIUI) Debian backed down. Engaging in brinksmanship with the upstream on such matters is not always going to give a favorable outcome, even if we have other distribution maintainers on our side; and in the meantime it's always unpleasant for the users caught in the middle. Agreed. That's why my proposal was that *all* of those (Debian, Fedora, Suse, MacPorts and brew) did the rename, not just us (Debian). It's certainly not nice to push upstream to do something they don't want to do, but when upstream is not doing their due diligence... -- Pau Garcia i Quiles http://www.elpauer.org (Due to my workload, I may need 10 days to answer) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/cakcbokuood1rwryptjlcocc4n2gdgswrox-qzteczxyu6hg...@mail.gmail.com
Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Node.js and it's future in debian
On 12-05-02 at 05:10pm, Patrick Ouellette wrote: On Tue, May 01, 2012 at 08:22:05PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: Maybe we should short-circuit this part of the conversation, since it doesn't sound like you're horribly interested in agreeing to change the name of node in the existing package. :) Actually, despite my vigorous defense of the ham radio use of node as a binary name, I am not adverse to renaming it provided it can be done in a manner that minimally disrupts the users. I believe the Node.js people need to help since they are the late comers and their upstream seems to be the issue, and they ignored policy at their peril to force the issue. If I ignored Policy, as you keep saying, I would have lowered bug#611698 to a non-RC severity. We have until now maintained Nodejs only in unstable because requests to rename axnode was met with either silence or refusal with the reasoning that axnode was more widely used in Debian than Nodejs. Obviously Nodejs is not widely used in Debian when initially packaged. So I've simply waited until it was really sensible to make such comparison of popularity among the users of Debian. Which seems to be the case now - even if still impaired by Nodejs only offered to our users of unstable and experimental Debian. If Debian is frozen tomorrow, then Nodejs will not be part of it, for the very reason that I *did* respect Policy. I'm more than a bit disappointed that this will be the second time a ham radio tool in Debian is forced to use a name the wider Linux ham community does not use. No one seems to be considering the issues or complications caused to the ham users. I've heard the assertion that the ham users are a smaller community, but I have not seen the numbers. It seems the issue has come down to a popularity contest, and since the Node.js folks don't understand ham radio the ham radio people will be made to bear the burden of the change. I do not want this to be judged _only_ on popularity, but it _is_ relevant - which you've also indicated yourself, e.g. when asking if Nodejs is of any relevancy at all, and when pointing out that axnode has a substantial userbase. I am happy that this discussion is finally happening. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Node.js and it's future in debian
Charles Plessy wrote: If we would tolerate conflicts, we would not support the parallel use of some of our packages, but there would be the benefit that the package dependancy graph could be parsed to report clusters of mutually-incompatible packages. Often, these incompatibilities will not correspond to use cases, as there is an obvious selection pressure upstream to avoid conflicts with other programs that are directlyqused in combination with the upstream work. Consider a package that contains a node.js script, which is not the primary purpose of the package. So it Recommends, rather than depends on nodejs. (Let's assume it uses #!/usr/bin/env node, and for the sake of example is something root might run, so /usr/sbin could be in PATH.) Using Conflicts makes this script behave very unfortunatly in certian circumstances. If some third package came along and added another node binary, and conflicted with node.js, we would probably call that package RC buggy, as it breaks unrelated software. So, having conflicting packages of this sort makes using Recommends, or even Suggests, a minefield, and should be avoided. -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Node.js and it's future in debian
+++ Patrick Ouellette [2012-05-01 23:12 -0400]: Of course the #! line is not the issue. The issue is two upstream maintainers separated by years and miles selected the same generic name for their binary file. Compounding the issue, some Debian Maintainer seeking to better the project by packaging additional software for the project failed to perform due diligence in researching if any of the binary names from the proposed new package were already in use. Just a quick question - is there an easy way to do this? I worry sometimes that I might be creating a binary name that is already used somewhere, and thus a potential clash, but it is not obvious to me how to check. Strictly this applies to every file in a package, although clashes are most likely in /usr/bin Wookey -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120502165354.gc13...@stoneboat.aleph1.co.uk
Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Node.js and it's future in debian
Wookey woo...@wookware.org writes: Just a quick question - is there an easy way to do this? I worry sometimes that I might be creating a binary name that is already used somewhere, and thus a potential clash, but it is not obvious to me how to check. Strictly this applies to every file in a package, although clashes are most likely in /usr/bin I usually just search Debian, since we have most things, but it's not a great solution. djb at one point tried to start a registry of command names at http://cr.yp.to/slashcommand/used but I don't think it's been maintained. (It doesn't, for example, have node.) -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87sjfio547@windlord.stanford.edu
Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Node.js and it's future in debian
On Wed, 2 May 2012 17:53:54 +0100 Wookey woo...@wookware.org wrote: +++ Patrick Ouellette [2012-05-01 23:12 -0400]: file. Compounding the issue, some Debian Maintainer seeking to better the project by packaging additional software for the project failed to perform due diligence in researching if any of the binary names from the proposed new package were already in use. Just a quick question - is there an easy way to do this? I worry sometimes that I might be creating a binary name that is already used somewhere, and thus a potential clash, but it is not obvious to me how to check. Strictly this applies to every file in a package, although clashes are most likely in /usr/bin ftp://ftp.uk.debian.org/debian/dists/sid/Contents-amd64.gz ? $ zgrep bin Contents-amd64.gz |wc -l 78822 There's also http://packages.debian.org/#search_contents which can search for files listed within packages. The 23Mb size of Contents*.gz is a barrier to doing this automatically or via lintian etc. For those with slow connections, p.d.o is possibly the best option, for specific files which may have problems. -- Neil Williams = http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ pgphaCBgcxkMs.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Node.js and it's future in debian
]] Wookey Just a quick question - is there an easy way to do this? Given most names don't explain particularly well what the command does, just use something inspired by pwgen. -- Tollef Fog Heen UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87zk9q4acm@qurzaw.varnish-software.com
Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Node.js and it's future in debian
On Wed, 2012-05-02 at 17:53 +0100, Wookey wrote: +++ Patrick Ouellette [2012-05-01 23:12 -0400]: Of course the #! line is not the issue. The issue is two upstream maintainers separated by years and miles selected the same generic name for their binary file. Compounding the issue, some Debian Maintainer seeking to better the project by packaging additional software for the project failed to perform due diligence in researching if any of the binary names from the proposed new package were already in use. Just a quick question - is there an easy way to do this? At least for projects hosted / listed on a variety of sites such as freshmeat^Wfreecode, there's Steve Kemp's namecheck script, a version of which is included in devscripts. Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1335989318.24513.18.ca...@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org
Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Node.js and it's future in debian
On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 05:53:54PM +0100, Wookey wrote: Just a quick question - is there an easy way to do this? I worry sometimes that I might be creating a binary name that is already used somewhere, and thus a potential clash, but it is not obvious to me how to check. Strictly this applies to every file in a package, although clashes are most likely in /usr/bin I wonder if there's any mileage in a lintian check against e.g. a local apt-file cache (removing files belonging to a package binary name that your source package claims to offer) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120502202701.GA12471@debian
Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Node.js and it's future in debian
Patrick Ouellette poue...@debian.org writes: I'm more than a bit disappointed that this will be the second time a ham radio tool in Debian is forced to use a name the wider Linux ham community does not use. No one seems to be considering the issues or complications caused to the ham users. I've heard the assertion that the ham users are a smaller community, but I have not seen the numbers. It seems the issue has come down to a popularity contest, and since the Node.js folks don't understand ham radio the ham radio people will be made to bear the burden of the change. Speaking solely for myself, the primary reason why it seems reasonable to me to just rename the ham radio node program is that it's in /usr/sbin and not meant to be regularly run directly by users, but rather to be configured once and then largely left alone. That means that coping with a non-standard name is quite a bit easier than with a program that's meant to be run regularly by end users. The place where the popularity comes into play for me is in weighing the impact on our users for calling the Node.js node program something else. My *default* opinion, when there's a package already in Debian and another comes along with a binary with the same name, is to just shrug and say first come, first serve and tell the second group to call their program something different. It's the popularity and the expectations of our users that in this case I think warrant looking further into other possible solutions. But I wouldn't extend that to say that the ham radio folks should obviously lose. If the ham radio node program were also a user interface routinely used by end users instead of used as part of system configuration, this would be a much harder discussion. Thankfully, that doesn't appear to be the case. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87bom6i7ja@windlord.stanford.edu
Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Node.js and it's future in debian
On Tue, May 01, 2012 at 08:22:05PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: Maybe we should short-circuit this part of the conversation, since it doesn't sound like you're horribly interested in agreeing to change the name of node in the existing package. :) Actually, despite my vigorous defense of the ham radio use of node as a binary name, I am not adverse to renaming it provided it can be done in a manner that minimally disrupts the users. I believe the Node.js people need to help since they are the late comers and their upstream seems to be the issue, and they ignored policy at their peril to force the issue. I'm more than a bit disappointed that this will be the second time a ham radio tool in Debian is forced to use a name the wider Linux ham community does not use. No one seems to be considering the issues or complications caused to the ham users. I've heard the assertion that the ham users are a smaller community, but I have not seen the numbers. It seems the issue has come down to a popularity contest, and since the Node.js folks don't understand ham radio the ham radio people will be made to bear the burden of the change. I think it would make sense to take this to the Technical Committee at this point and just make a decision, unless anyone thinks something substantially new is likely to turn up. (We should probably give it a few more days to see if anything does, but it's feeling increasingly unlikely to me, as is the idea that we're all going to reach a consensus.) I forwarded the message proposing the Node.js people step up with a migration plan and code to transition the ham radio package to the linux-hams list. It usually takes a few days to get any substantive comments on that list. Pat -- ,-. Patrick Ouellette| It is no use walking anywhere to preach unless pat(at)flying-gecko.net | our walking is our preaching. Amateur Radio: NE4PO | -- Francis of Assisi `-' -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120502211033.gk7...@flying-gecko.net
Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Node.js and it's future in debian
On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 06:43:04PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote: There's also http://packages.debian.org/#search_contents which can search for files listed within packages. That's where I check. Pat -- ,-. Patrick Ouellette| No one is to be called an enemy, all are your pat(at)flying-gecko.net | benefactors, and no one does you harm. Amateur Radio: NE4PO | You have no enemy except yourselves. | -- Francis of Assisi `-' -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120502211226.gl7...@flying-gecko.net
Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Node.js and it's future in debian
Hi all, I think that we are asking the impossible, to be universal, cover a large number of fields, and fit all of this in a single name space witout conflicts. With our current approach, to rename at least one of the program names, we make Debian systems incompatible with outside documentation and scripts, and one of the drawbacks of this approach is that there is no easy way to mechanically discover and report to the user which programs have been renamed compared to their original upstream distribution. If we would tolerate conflicts, we would not support the parallel use of some of our packages, but there would be the benefit that the package dependancy graph could be parsed to report clusters of mutually-incompatible packages. Often, these incompatibilities will not correspond to use cases, as there is an obvious selection pressure upstream to avoid conflicts with other programs that are directlyqused in combination with the upstream work. A third solution is possible (and of course requires work), it would be to implement namespaces in a similar way to the alternative system. Packages competing for a program name would have the original upstream name in one namespace, and leave it to the other package(s) in other namespaces. Lastly, I just read Fedora's page about packaging conflicts, and noted that among the recommendations, there is a suggestion to coordinate with the other distributions in case of renaming. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Conflicts#Approaching_Upstream Perhaps it would be usefult to see what they would think of renaming the ham radio 'node' (it looks like currently the renamed program is the one of the draft node.js package). https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=815018 Cheers, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120503034742.gd20...@falafel.plessy.net
Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Node.js and it's future in debian
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 08:39:41PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: Node.js is becoming quite popular and is known generally to use node in its hash-bang. Seriously? People are writing scripts that start #!node That is truely messed up! Pat -- ,-. Patrick Ouellette | Lord, grant that I might not so much seek pat(at)flying-gecko.net | to be loved as to love. Amateur Radio: NE4PO | -- Francis of Assisi `-' -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120501211803.gk30...@flying-gecko.net
Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Node.js and it's future in debian
Patrick Ouellette poue...@debian.org writes: On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 08:39:41PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: Node.js is becoming quite popular and is known generally to use node in its hash-bang. Seriously? People are writing scripts that start #!node The #! part is really not the issue, since the two packages don't conflict there (the ham radio one is in /usr/sbin). However, Googling for Node.js tutorials and documentation actually reveal that people usually *don't* use #!, which would avoid the conflict, and instead run node file. Which means when both packages are installed, which node they get depends on what their PATH looks like, which is the sort of conflict that we try to avoid. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87k40vv8sl@windlord.stanford.edu
Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Node.js and it's future in debian
On Tue, May 01, 2012 at 03:24:58PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: Date: Tue, 01 May 2012 15:24:58 -0700 From: Russ Allbery r...@debian.org Subject: Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Node.js and it's future in debian To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org Patrick Ouellette poue...@debian.org writes: On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 08:39:41PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: Node.js is becoming quite popular and is known generally to use node in its hash-bang. Seriously? People are writing scripts that start #!node The #! part is really not the issue, since the two packages don't conflict there (the ham radio one is in /usr/sbin). Of course the #! line is not the issue. The issue is two upstream maintainers separated by years and miles selected the same generic name for their binary file. Compounding the issue, some Debian Maintainer seeking to better the project by packaging additional software for the project failed to perform due diligence in researching if any of the binary names from the proposed new package were already in use. Having packaged the software and uploaded it, someone noticed the issue and started us down the path we are on. However, Googling for Node.js tutorials and documentation actually reveal that people usually *don't* use #!, which would avoid the conflict, and instead run node file. Which means when both packages are installed, which node they get depends on what their PATH looks like, which is the sort of conflict that we try to avoid. So Google says most people run the files interactively from the command line, almost never from scripts? Be careful using search engine results to support your position. You can usually skew the results depending on which search engine you use and how you word the search. Do you still do things (especially repetitive things) the way you learned in the tutorial/documentation? Do you automate processes with shell scripts, or type the command each time? Pat -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120502031200.gb18...@flying-gecko.net
Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Node.js and it's future in debian
Patrick Ouellette poue...@debian.org writes: Of course the #! line is not the issue. The issue is two upstream maintainers separated by years and miles selected the same generic name for their binary file. I agree with this. Compounding the issue, some Debian Maintainer seeking to better the project by packaging additional software for the project failed to perform due diligence in researching if any of the binary names from the proposed new package were already in use. Having packaged the software and uploaded it, someone noticed the issue and started us down the path we are on. Maybe we should short-circuit this part of the conversation, since it doesn't sound like you're horribly interested in agreeing to change the name of node in the existing package. :) I think it would make sense to take this to the Technical Committee at this point and just make a decision, unless anyone thinks something substantially new is likely to turn up. (We should probably give it a few more days to see if anything does, but it's feeling increasingly unlikely to me, as is the idea that we're all going to reach a consensus.) -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87y5pbi7xe@windlord.stanford.edu
Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Node.js and it's future in debian
+1 to let Node.js be just node -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f9ea18a.8030...@gmail.com
Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Node.js and it's future in debian
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 08:39:41PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: On 12-04-28 at 01:50pm, Joey Hess wrote: Jonas Smedegaard wrote: As I understand the current status, it has already on this list been resolved that *both* packages should back off from using the clashing name node. I also am biased in one direction but shall not say which as I see no benefit at this point in rehashing the discussion: Both packaging camps have clearly demonstrated a lack of interest in letting the other use the name node, which means we must both step off of it. Hi all, I'm not sure if such this solution was already thought of so I have choosen to present my approach: A new package named node is created which contains two symlinks /usr/(s)bin/node, a debconf question, link managing scripts and some sort of trigger. Both conflicting packages get a NMU by a neutral member renaming the node command and adding a dedepency on the new package named node. When installing only one of the two packages it automatically gets the node link and everybody is happy. If both are installed the person is presented a debconf question which allows him to choose which node* should be the one. Wouldn't this solve the whole dilemma in a policy compliant and easy enough fashion that it could be used or what error is there in my idea? Have a nice sunday Harald Jenny -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120429135826.ga14...@harald-has.a-little-linux-box.at
Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Node.js and it's future in debian
On Apr 29, Harald Jenny har...@a-little-linux-box.at wrote: Wouldn't this solve the whole dilemma in a policy compliant and easy enough fashion that it could be used or what error is there in my idea? If fixing a real world problem requires so much overhead because of policy concerns then it looks like the policy needs to be fixed. Policy is not a religion. -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Node.js and it's future in debian
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 04:23:25PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: On Apr 29, Harald Jenny har...@a-little-linux-box.at wrote: Wouldn't this solve the whole dilemma in a policy compliant and easy enough fashion that it could be used or what error is there in my idea? If fixing a real world problem requires so much overhead because of policy concerns then it looks like the policy needs to be fixed. Policy is not a religion. -- ciao, Marco Agreed but how long would it take to fix the policy vs how long would it take to produce this package in the face of next stable release? Kind regards Harald Jenny -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120429143251.gb14...@harald-has.a-little-linux-box.at
Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Node.js and it's future in debian
On Apr 29, Harald Jenny har...@a-little-linux-box.at wrote: Agreed but how long would it take to fix the policy vs how long would it take to produce this package in the face of next stable release? The current situation does not even cause any practical problems, just a policy violation. -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Node.js and it's future in debian
On 12-04-28 at 03:31am, Carl Fürstenberg wrote: There has been an log struggle between the nodejs package and the node package, which is still unresolved (bug #611698 for example) And I wonder now what the future should look like. To summarize the problem: * the nodejs upstream binary is called node, and the upstream developers have refused to change it's binary name to nodejs for debian; * The the hamradio package node shipping a binary called node, and as it's so old, the developers argue that the package must ship a binary called node or breakage will occur. * The reason the nodejs developers want to ship the binary as node is because all programs written for nodejs all has /usr/bin/node in it's shebang * the nodejs package are not allowed to conflict on the node package just because the binary name is the same As I'm not a hamradio user, I'm off course biased towards letting nodejs having the node binary and let it pass to testing. But we must find a solution to this, as nodejs is getting more and more used, and developers are forced to install nodejs from source to be able to use it instead of install it via the package manager. As I understand the current status, it has already on this list been resolved that *both* packages should back off from using the clashing name node. I also am biased in one direction but shall not say which as I see no benefit at this point in rehashing the discussion: Both packaging camps have clearly demonstrated a lack of interest in letting the other use the name node, which means we must both step off of it. Just today there was progress on the side of Node.js - see bug#650343. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Node.js and it's future in debian
Jonas Smedegaard wrote: As I understand the current status, it has already on this list been resolved that *both* packages should back off from using the clashing name node. I also am biased in one direction but shall not say which as I see no benefit at this point in rehashing the discussion: Both packaging camps have clearly demonstrated a lack of interest in letting the other use the name node, which means we must both step off of it. Just because someone read policy or whatever it was in a way that requires this King Solomonesque approach to this sort of conflict, does not actually mean that it makes sense to me, or I hope, to most of us. It's certianly not the fait accompli you make it out to be. There is a transition plan and patch for the (ham radio) node in #614907. Nobody has been able to demonstate any appreciable problems with renaming it. Indeed, noone has demonstrated any likely reason for its node command to be run directly. -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Node.js and it's future in debian
On 12-04-28 at 01:50pm, Joey Hess wrote: Jonas Smedegaard wrote: As I understand the current status, it has already on this list been resolved that *both* packages should back off from using the clashing name node. I also am biased in one direction but shall not say which as I see no benefit at this point in rehashing the discussion: Both packaging camps have clearly demonstrated a lack of interest in letting the other use the name node, which means we must both step off of it. Just because someone read policy or whatever it was in a way that requires this King Solomonesque approach to this sort of conflict, does not actually mean that it makes sense to me, or I hope, to most of us. It's certianly not the fait accompli you make it out to be. There is a transition plan and patch for the (ham radio) node in #614907. Nobody has been able to demonstate any appreciable problems with renaming it. Indeed, noone has demonstrated any likely reason for its node command to be run directly. Seems the issue is getting rehashing anyway, so let me reveal that my bias is on the side of renaming the ham radio daemon and allow Node.js to use node, because a) I have so far failed to locate any sensible explanation from the ham radio camp why they must keep the name, and b) Node.js is becoming quite popular and is known generally to use node in its hash-bang. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: Digital signature
