|
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 stoooopid actions by people not doing their homework, yes. > > > - Jonas
Best regards,
Thomas Preud'homme |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.