Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Node.js and it's future in debian
On Tue, May 01, 2012 at 03:24:58PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Date: Tue, 01 May 2012 15:24:58 -0700
> From: Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org>
> Subject: Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Node.js and it's future in debian
> To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
>
> Patrick Ouellette <pouelle@debian.org> writes:
> > On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 08:39:41PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>
> >> Node.js is becoming quite popular and is known generally to use "node"
> >> in its hash-bang.
>
> > Seriously? People are writing scripts that start
> > #!node
>
> The #! part is really not the issue, since the two packages don't conflict
> there (the ham radio one is in /usr/sbin).
>
Of course the #! line is not the issue. The issue is two upstream maintainers
separated by years and miles selected the same generic name for their binary
file. Compounding the issue, some Debian Maintainer seeking to better the
project by packaging additional software for the project failed to perform
"due diligence" in researching if any of the binary names from the proposed
new package were already in use. Having packaged the software and uploaded
it, someone noticed the issue and started us down the path we are on.
> However, Googling for Node.js tutorials and documentation actually reveal
> that people usually *don't* use #!, which would avoid the conflict, and
> instead run "node <file>". Which means when both packages are installed,
> which node they get depends on what their PATH looks like, which is the
> sort of conflict that we try to avoid.
>
So Google says most people run the files interactively from the command
line, almost never from scripts?
Be careful using search engine results to support your position. You
can usually skew the results depending on which search engine you use
and how you word the search.
Do you still do things (especially repetitive things) the way you learned
in the tutorial/documentation? Do you automate processes with shell scripts,
or type the command each time?
Pat
Reply to: