Le dimanche 6 mai 2012 21:49:11, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit :
> Greetings, dear Debian developer,
> [replying via bugreport as I am not subscribed to firstname.lastname@example.org]
> On 12-05-06 at 10:22am, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Sat, May 05, 2012 at 03:07:27AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > > We have until now maintained Nodejs only in unstable because
> > > requests to rename axnode was met with either silence or refusal
> > > with the reasoning that axnode was more widely used in Debian than
> > > Nodejs.
> > >
> > > Obviously Nodejs is not widely used in Debian when initially
> > > packaged. So I've simply waited until it was really sensible to
> > > make such comparison of popularity among the users of Debian. Which
> > > seems to be the case now - even if still impaired by Nodejs only
> > > offered to our users of unstable and experimental Debian.
> > I find this response from you *very* disappointing. It implies that
> > you knew that you had a responsibility to rename the Nodejs binary
> > according to Policy, but that rather than acting in a timely manner to
> > persuade upstream of the importance of renaming, you decided to wait
> > until momentum was on your side so that you could have an outcome in
> > your favor.
> No, that is not what it means. You are reading timings into it that I
> did not write there, and you are reading those timings wrong!
I believe the writing was just misleading and Steve just misunderstood it. I understood the same myself and I don't think I have any a priori on this since I am not at all involved. I believe this feeling come from the sentence "I've simply waiting until it was really sensible to make such a comparison of popularity".
So let's just assume it was a misunderstanding and go back to technical argument in order to avoid this discussion to become too heated.
> > My understanding is that Node.js is a three-year-old project, and that
> > the namespace issue was first raised upstream at least a year and a
> > half ago. We would have been in a much better position to resolve this
> > in a manner that does right by our existing ham community if you had
> > lived up to your moral obligations as a Debian developer *then*
> > instead of letting the issue fester.
> Your moral obligation, before throwing accusations like that, is to at
> least investigate the issue, and ideally first asking nicely.
> You can read from nodejs packaging changelog and git commits when I got
> involved in the maintainance, and you can read from bugreports and
> mailinglists how my fellow maintainer, Jérémy Lal, conducted those moral
> obligations which you claim that I should've done before I even knew
> what "node" meant.
> > 'node' is a stupid name for a program, and this should have been
> > impressed upon Node.js upstream early and often. We would have been
> > in a position, together with other distributions, to force a sensible
> > upstream name. I believe we no longer are in a position to do so, and
> > even if we did, the transition now would be many times more disruptive
> > for users than if this had been dealt with in 2010.
> > > If Debian is frozen tomorrow, then Nodejs will not be part of it,
> > > for the very reason that I *did* respect Policy.
> > It may not be part of the release, but it will still be a mess for
> > everyone involved.
> Thanks to stoooopid actions by people not doing their homework, yes.
> - Jonas
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.