Bug#919951: Request about the /usr/bin/dune filename
On 22 Jan 2019, at 11:46, Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>
> Anil Madhavapeddy writes ("Bug#919951: Request about the /usr/bin/dune filename"):
>> And just to followup the query about the libdune numeric library, they
>> also appear to have no plans to use /usr/bin/dune. I wasn't copied on
>> their mailing list thread with the reply, but you can see it here:
>
> 1. "Appear to have no plans" is not sufficient. If we tolerate the
> ocaml package taking /usr/bin/dune, then the numerics library will
> probably never be able to ship /usr/bin/dune in future.
While you were making unsubstantiated comments about myself and
Jeremie, we simply contacted the other projects to have a civilised
conversation. For the record, the thread has continued and more libdune
developers have indicated that they have no intention of using this binary:
https://lists.dune-project.org/pipermail/dune-devel/2019-January/002426.html
>> The /usr/bin/dune binary name is very very hard for us to rename,
>> however, since it is so embedded in so many project Makefiles.
>
> Insofar as the authors and users of this tool have collectively
> decided to unwisely (and, I'm sorry to say, apparently also
> arrogantly) adopt a short, contested, confusing project and command
> name, it is right that the community surrounding that tool should bear
> *all* of the costs of that decision. And if those users have lashed
> themselves firmly to the mast that is not really an excuse IMO.
As an outsider to Debian, I have to ask some basic questions
(CC leader@debian.org).
Ian Jackson keeps repeatedly accusing us via terms such as
‘unwise’ and ‘arrogant’, while carefully avoiding commenting
on the rationale for our choices. I would note that we are unable
to predict which of our open source projects will succeed and be
worthy of inclusion into Debian ahead of time, and so it is difficult
to always pick names that are fresh and unique globally.
Dune is one such example — we have already posted our rationale
for our choice (and indeed, the discussions with Whitedune and
libdune have all been resolved amicably and very quickly).
There are only so many times that I can post this before I get tired
of Ian Jackson calling me names with the Internet equivalent of his
spittle raining down on my face.
> In that case Debian ought to reserve /usr/bin/dune for DUNE’s
> possible future use.
> <snip>
> Debian should reward good behaviour and ensure that those who choose
> good names, or have been using a name for a long time, do not find
> someone else's tanks suddenly parked on their lawn. (Or, even,
> parked at their kerb outside their house.)
>
> Conversely Debian does *not* have a responsibility to enable, support,
> excuse, or even tolerate, bad behaviour - such as choosing a command
> name which the name of well-established and easily discoverable
> existing software project. Indeed I would say we have a
> responsibility to discourage it. At the very least someone who does
> that should get short shrift whenever any kind of conflict arises.
>
> I appreciate that this is annoying if you are on the wrong end of it.
>
> No doubt some people make these kind of mistakes without realising
> that it is Not OK to simply declare certain unrelated software
> noncoinstallable.
>
> And it is particularly annoying for the users and downstreams of
> software whose upstreams are careless about these matters. But as the
> user or downstream of some software you are buying into the decisions
> of your upstream, for good or ill. You are buying into your
> upstream's mistakes, whether those mistakes are made out of
> inexperience, ignorance, haste, insularity, or arrogance.
Dear Debian project leader (CCed), we’ve resolved the rather
simple technical matter in this thread amicably by directly
communicating with the upstream software projects involved.
However, there are lots of references to what Debian ‘should’
and ‘must’ do in the above quoted email, but very little clarity on
Ian Jackson’s actual authority to speak for Debian. Who is he,
and is he speaking for the Debian project (with insults and all)?
He appears to have resigned from the Debian Technical Committee
some years back, but I am not familiar with the internal structure
of your project.
If he *does* speak for the project and no apology or response is
forthcoming, then we (ocaml.org) will be reconsidering our support
in terms of CI and infrastructure investment in testing and supporting
Debian. Life’s too short to work for free on open source software in
return for insults on the Internet.
If he *doesn't* speak for Debian, then we’d love to be able to
directly speak to whoever resolves these matters so that the
hardworking Debian package maintainer for OCaml can get
on with his volunteer efforts without being harassed by Ian Jackson.
I hope that’s clear enough.
regards,
Anil
Reply to: