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

Re: Node.js and it's future in debian

On Tue, May 01, 2012 at 01:07:11AM +0200, Carsten Hey wrote:
> Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 01:07:11 +0200
> From: Carsten Hey <carsten@debian.org>
> Subject:  Re: Node.js and it's future in debian
> To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
> Mail-Followup-To: Carsten Hey <carsten@debian.org>,
>  debian-devel@lists.debian.org
> * Carl Fürstenberg [2012-04-28 03:31 +0200]:
> > There has been an log struggle between the nodejs package and the node
> > package, which is still unresolved (bug #611698 for example) And I
> > wonder now what the future should look like.
> In short I think that there is only one sane solution to this and that
> the way to reach this solution is to ask the tech-ctte for a decision.
> This is the second thread about this topic on -devel, the first one was
> in November 2011.  In both threads and in some smaller ones, people
> basically claimed things like (incomplete list):

It is at least the third discussion that I can remember.

> Given that node is a rarely used daemon and that nodejs is a widely used
> language, I think that nodejs should get the binary name node; but due
> to the non-responsiveness of node's maintainers I think this might be
> a case where involving the tech-ctte would help.
> node's maintainers don't participate in such discussions in a reasonable
> and timely manner, for example the RC bug had no action for months
> despite the patch and nobody ever explained what exactly the problem of
> a changed binary name for a daemon would be (node can be used
> interactively, but it is not supposed to be used that way and those
> users that do would be able to set up an alias anyway).  The first
> answer from one of the uploaders was sent nearly a year after nodesjs'
> maintainer asked about this issue on the maintainer's list (back then he
> didn't seem to notice that those who answered were unrelated to the node
> package).  The subject of the -devel thread last year "Is anyone
> maintaining (the ham radio tool) node?" speaks for itself.

So expel all the maintainers for having a real life and not living and
breathing only the Debian project and it's fire hose like mailing lists.

If timeliness is an issue, email the maintainer(s) directly.  No other
package is subverted because of slowness to address a bug (the exception
being NMU uploads, which I would not class as subverting the package).
Packages are dropped from the release for RC bugs.

A package that has been in Debian for YEARS should not expect a RC 
bug to be filed on the basis on a name space collision. (Otherwise
look out for your favorite executable, because someone WILL name the
"next new thing" with the same name.)

As was put forth in the "Is anyone maintaining" thread, node is a fairly 
mature piece of code that has been working without major upstream changes
because it does the job it was written to do.

> I assume all of node's uploaders did great work on many ham related
> packages, but all that the two uploaders that replied to this issue
> during the last two years did related to the node package is that they
> also replied to the "Call for debian hamradio developers pool" from
> node's actual but now retired maintainer who then added them as
> uploaders.  Only Hamish, who did not respond to this issue, uploaded
> node once in 2005, the others did never do any upload.  The responses
> from the other two uploaders were essentially "please report a bug"
> (although this was already done) by one; and "... then no package should
> get the name" and in one mail "this patch needs to be tested by someone
> who runs node and nodejs" by the other.

There hasn't been any upstream changes in node for a long time.  The package
builds fine in the auto-builders and does what it was designed to do.

The number of active ham radio maintainers has varied over time, just like
other packages.  Right now there are only a few, and most of us are busy
(just like everyone else).

> Patrick Ouellette       | It is not fitting, when one is in God's service,  <
> pat(at)flying-gecko.net | to have a gloomy face or a chilling look.         <
> Amateur Radio: NE4PO    | -- Francis of Assisi                              <

Reply to: