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

Two groups of users, one distro in the middle

On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 09:09:09PM +0100, Vincent Bernat wrote:
> OoO En  ce début  d'après-midi nuageux du  lundi 07 novembre  2011, vers
> 14:42, Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> disait :
> >   2a. Likewise the maintainer of "nodejs" should prepare a version
> >       of the package where the "node" binary is called "nodejs".
> As Patrick  said earlier in the  thread that not enough  members seem to
> care about this, I add my voice here: node from node.js is often used in
> shebang  while node from  AX25 is  not.  Having  a "nodejs"  binary will
> cause many difficulties to our users.

While on the one hand, nodejs's claim to "node" is supported by ample
use in shebang lines, on the other hand AX25's claim to "node" is
supported by the fact that it was established well before the nodejs
project came along.

According to [1], this isn't the first time the nodejs folks ran into
a name problem. Up until March of 2009 they were using the name
"server," a far too generic name that compelled them to switch to the
current "node." Even then they should have realized that the new name
was too generic.

In any case, the choice of name wasn't Debian's fault.

> What  if  the  problem  was  raised  ten  years  ago  about  Python  for
> example. What  an horrible mess it  would be today if  the python binary
> was called "python-py" or "python-script".

We'll never know. Python didn't choose a name that was too generic.

> See how communities may react to  this. Ruby community does not like our
> packaging just  because we enforce stability over  freshness. What would
> think  node.js community  if  we are  using  /usr/bin/nodejs instead  of
> /usr/bin/node.

Clearly, the nodejs community would not be pleased. On the other hand,
the AX25 community would not be pleased about being forced to rename
if it fell on them. So the real question is which community should
bear the costs of resolving this conflict?

At this stage, it looks like neither side is willing to budge, so
logic and Debian policy say both must bear the costs.

> Debian would  be listed as a black sheep  in every FAQ or
> tutorial and  users will  be invited to  just install some  non official
> package or use the source.

I would hope that those FAQs spell out the real reason for the
discrepency, which is there was a name conflict and Debian, in an
attempt to serve both communities fairly, made both packages rename
away from "node."

Alternately, the nodejs folks could switch to the name "nodejs"
upstream as well.

[1] http://bugs.debian.org/611698#40

Reply to: