Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Node.js and it's future in debian
On Tue, May 01, 2012 at 08:22:05PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> Maybe we should short-circuit this part of the conversation, since it
> doesn't sound like you're horribly interested in agreeing to change the
> name of node in the existing package. :)
>
Actually, despite my vigorous defense of the ham radio use of node as
a binary name, I am not adverse to renaming it provided it can be done
in a manner that minimally disrupts the users.
I believe the Node.js people need to help since they are the "late comers"
and their upstream seems to be the issue, and they ignored policy at their
peril to force the issue.
I'm more than a bit disappointed that this will be the second time a ham radio
tool in Debian is forced to use a name the wider Linux ham community does not
use. No one seems to be considering the issues or complications caused to the
ham users. I've heard the assertion that the ham users are a "smaller"
community, but I have not seen the numbers. It seems the issue has come down
to a popularity contest, and since the Node.js folks don't understand ham
radio the ham radio people will be made to bear the burden of the change.
> I think it would make sense to take this to the Technical Committee at
> this point and just make a decision, unless anyone thinks something
> substantially new is likely to turn up. (We should probably give it a few
> more days to see if anything does, but it's feeling increasingly unlikely
> to me, as is the idea that we're all going to reach a consensus.)
>
I forwarded the message proposing the Node.js people step up with a migration
plan and code to transition the ham radio package to the linux-hams list.
It usually takes a few days to get any substantive comments on that list.
Pat
--
,-----------------------------------------------------------------------------.
> Patrick Ouellette | It is no use walking anywhere to preach unless <
> pat(at)flying-gecko.net | our walking is our preaching. <
> Amateur Radio: NE4PO | -- Francis of Assisi <
`-----------------------------------------------------------------------------'
Reply to: