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

Bug#614907: [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 stoooopid 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

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: