[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#614907: node: name conflicts with node.js interpreter



Package: node
Version: 0.3.2-7.1
Severity: serious
Justification: policy §10.1
Tags: upstream

Hi,

Both LinuxNode (package "node") and node.js (package "nodejs") are
designed to be accessed through the command name "node".  There seems
to be no agreement[1][2] in Debian about what should be done with that
name.  Therefore both binaries must be renamed.

John Goerzen provided some useful advice[3]:

| ... resulting in considerable confusion from many people, given that
| much documentation out there refers to call and listen. I, for one,
| was rather puzzled, especially since there is also an ax25_call which
| does something different.
|
| Not saying it was a bad choice, but just that this was what the result
| was. Much existing documentation is confusing to Debian users.
|
| Also, it should be stated that /usr/sbin/node is normally started from
| ax25d, which is somewhat analogous to inetd. It is not normally
| invoked by users (though it could be). Renaming it will break servers
| unless users are well aware.

This says to me:

 - the renaming ought to be documented in README.Debian and NEWS.Debian

 - it would be nice to track down documentation in other packages to
   add a note to, too

 - it would be especially nice to help people update their ax25d.conf.
   Luckily, ax25d.conf is a conffile shipped by ax25-tools, so
   tweaking the version ax25-tools ships should already help (and if
   we want to be especially kind, providing a migration tool to be
   invoked by hand).

 - a migration period in testing/sid (but hopefully not in stable)
   during which node is a script that prints a warning and runs
   ax25_node might be appropriate.

If there is any way I can help, please feel free to ask.

Regards,
Jonathan

[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2010/09/msg00465.html
[2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2011/02/msg00163.html
[3] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2011/02/msg00191.html



Reply to: