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

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

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 tech-ctte@d.o]


> 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


Best regards,


Thomas Preud'homme

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Reply to: