Re: Is anyone maintaining (the ham radio tool) node?
- To: Damien Gardner Jnr <email@example.com>
- Subject: Re: Is anyone maintaining (the ham radio tool) node?
- From: Patrick Ouellette <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2011 14:48:14 -0500
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20111108194814.GD30829@flying-gecko.net>
- In-reply-to: <[🔎] 8E7549F5-1800-4400-8FF6-9FA86FB1ACAE@rendrag.net>
- References: <20110224084728.GA13381@elie> <[🔎] 20111106072651.GA31593@elie.hsd1.il.comcast.net> <[🔎] 20111107025811.GB16217@flying-gecko.net> <[🔎] 20111107032031.GA25810@elie.hsd1.il.comcast.net> <[🔎] 8E7549F5-1800-4400-8FF6-9FA86FB1ACAE@rendrag.net>
On Tue, Nov 08, 2011 at 07:16:35AM +1100, Damien Gardner Jnr wrote:
> I have to pop my head up from my lurker-hole here, and say that I'm a more than a little confused, why a 15 year old application should change its name at all? Even the Node.js wiki makes it clear that the application should be called Node.js 'to disambiguate it from other nodes' - it sounds like the developers are being proactive in notifying users that they picked a name which conflicts with other packages?
You would think there would be some weight given to the length of time a
binary has been in the project, but there is not. First come, first served
does not apply according to Debian Policy.
> I don't know about others, but I'm not overly keen on the idea of reconfiguring machines which were installed last century, because a program which appeared in the last two years has the same name.. If you think about it, node.js is *much* more 'able' to change the name of its binary - it still has an actively developed community! - I don't know about other folk, but I find it pretty darned hard to find much 'current' documentation about a lot of the older x.25 & bbs stuff I have running on some of my older boxen - one of my BBS packages doesn't even appear in a google search anymore (god help me if the wrapper I setup in 2001 to make it telnet-accessible as well as dial-in, ever breaks ;) )
I hope to avoid any issues with breaking old boxes with the eventual
resolution of the issue.
> Although I'm curious why both packages can't just shove a Conflicts: in for each other, and be done with it? Or just leave it as is, since they're in different directories, provided a nice big must-click-ok dialog comes up during install/upgrade to notify the user of the change? From the AX.25 side, and probably at least partly from the Node.js side, the users are going to be fairly cluey, if not accomplished hackerers - having multiple binaries of the same name, in different directories in the path is nothing new (hell, we used to rely on it on some of our hosting servers - things like reboot, shutdown, etc were wrappered with scripts in higher-preferenced directories from the PATH, to make sure accidental reboots, shutdowns, rm's etc, couldn't happen, as explicit paths had to be used.. As for scripts etc, well, if you're not specifying the absolute path to any binary you're calling, you're just asking for trouble anyway!
The issue is one of following policy. Debian policy doesn't allow such a
"resolution" to this issue. Consensus on which must change, or both must
change are the only allowed outcomes.
Patrick Ouellette email@example.com
ne4po (at) arrl (dot) net Amateur Radio: NE4PO
What kind of change have you been in the world today?