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

Re: node

* Steve Langasek [2012-06-04 11:40 -0700]:
> I think it's too late for that.  The TC has been asked to rule on the
> matter, and we appear to have a consensus regarding the correct technical
> path forward.  If there are specific technical objections to the proposed
> resolution, we should of course take those on board; ...

I assume that you are aware that, additional to node and nodejs, many
other source packages (I found 18 with one or more scripts that contain
a node shebang line) would need to be adapted with the ruling you seem
to plan, that properly renaming the hamradio package node is all but
trivial, that all that this would need to be done before the freeze and
that it would be reasonable for the nodejs maintainers to stop working
on implementing your ruling after the hamradio node has been renamed and
to tell users to use backports after the Wheezy release.

In related news:
 * I don't think trying hard to find a consensus among the TC members is
   a suitable way for the TC to make a decision.
 * TC IRC meetings would be more efficient if a short summary of each
   planned topic including checkable references would be prepared by
   a TC member before the IRC meeting.
 * That "no complaint, no redress (nullo actore, nullus iudex)" applies
   to TC rulings could be a useful addition to the constitution.
 * A way to close the request for a TC ruling could be useful from time
   to time.


Reply to: