node (was: IRC Meeting (Thursday, May 31, 2012) Notes and Logs (Time in PDT))
The last paragraph of [1] suggests that there is no technical conflict
between the maintainers of both packages. All that would have been
needed after the communication problem was solved is a technical
solution that makes all happy and the release team and the ftpmasters
agreeing to ignore the according policy violation. Anyway, now the
technical committee is in the game and I assume the release team would
not create facts whilst the TC is discussing this unless it is asked by
TC members.
The last paragraph of [2] should IMHO be read before any ruling happens.
[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-hams/2012/05/msg00003.html
[2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-hams/2012/05/msg00017.html
* Don Armstrong [2012-05-31 11:49 -0700]:
> = Draft solution =
>
> 1. nodejs is to provide /usr/bin/nodejs
Possible reasons to name the command nodejs and not node are noted
below, none of them is compelling:
* Punishing nodejs users, which might be in conflict with the social
contract.
* Supporting upgrades from a nodesjs package that provides the command
name nodejs. Such a package does not exist, at least in stable.
* Let node/stable users upgrade to Wheezy and install nodejs without
the need to migrate custom node scripts previously. Those three
users can be informed about the need to migrate custom scripts before
installing nodejs via a NEWS file.
* "This is by design". This does not imply that the design is
reasonable.
As written in an earlier mail to -ctte, I think, nodejs should provide
/usr/bin/node instead.
> 1. ax25-node to provide /usr/sbin/ax25-node
I don't think the TC should rule about names for the executable and the
package. There is no technical reason against naming both for example
axnode instead of ax25-node.
A ballot without nodejs-legacy could be:
A. The binary package node should be renamed to a name to be chosen by
its maintainers, or, if they do not choose a name, axnode. A binary
package node that provides a symlink /usr/sbin/node, conflicts with
the package nodejs, provides a NEWS file and depends on renamed node
package should be created. This new binary package node should not
be considered to violate the policy because of the conflict with
nodejs for one release cycle. The Debian Hamradio Maintainers
should accept reasonable patches that implement the above explained.
Given that above changes are implemented, the package nodejs should
conflict with node and this conflict should not be considered to be
a policy violation for two release cycles.
B. Further discussion
Many things, for example, removing node from Debian when Wheezy+1 gets
frozen, are implied by the above.
Carsten
Reply to: