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

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Node.js and it's future in debian

On Fri, 4 May 2012 19:00:10 +0200, Pau Garcia i Quiles <pgquiles@elpauer.org> wrote:
> Agreed. That's why my proposal was that *all* of those (Debian,
> Fedora, Suse, MacPorts and brew) did the rename, not just us (Debian).
> It's certainly not nice to push upstream to do something they don't
> want to do, but when upstream is not doing their due diligence...

As a lapsed HAM who's not transmitted anything for about 20 years, and
someone vaguely aware of node.js, I feel relatively unbiased about this.

How about doing the following:

  node package replaced by a node-legacy package that contains no more
  than a README and a symlink node --> ax25-node, and depends on

  ax25-node package, which contains what node does now, with the binary

  nodejs package replaced by a node.js-legacy (or a better name if there
  is one) package that contains no more than a README and a symlink node
  --> node.js (or whatever), and depends on node.js

  node.js package that is the nodejs package with a renamed binary.

and make node-legacy and  node.js-legacy conflict.

The problems with this would seem to be the potential pain of renaming
packages, and the fact that using conflicts like that is a policy
violation -- could we perhaps make an exception for a case like this on
the basis that the package descriptions could spell out why the
conflict is there.

The result would be that either camp can install the -legacy package and
carry on unaffected, and anyone that needs both simply avoids the
-legacy packages, and fixes any hard-coded paths on their system, which
they'll know to do because they'll be a (probably more cluefull than
average) combined HAM and Node.js user who's been pointed at the READMEs
by the conflict and the package descriptions.

The -legacy naming will apply a gentle pressure to just use the real
packages, which will leave the door open to upstreams to see the light
and change their default name, but not so much pressure that they'll get
upset about it.

The READMEs of all the packages could refer to why this was done, and
how to get what you want depending one which of the various permutations
of behaviours you want.

So this would need package replacement, which is a pain, and an
exception for a policy violation -- is that enough to kill the idea?

Cheers, Phil.
|)|  Philip Hands [+44 (0)20 8530 9560]    http://www.hands.com/
|-|  HANDS.COM Ltd.                    http://www.uk.debian.org/
|(|  10 Onslow Gardens, South Woodford, London  E18 1NE  ENGLAND

Attachment: pgpOIALQmlBoF.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: