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

Re: Node.js and it's future in debian

On Tue, May 01, 2012 at 04:53:05PM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 16:53:05 -0500
> From: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
> Subject:  Re: Node.js and it's future in debian
> To: Patrick Ouellette <ne4po@arrl.net>
> Cc: node@packages.debian.org, nodejs@packages.debian.org
> (shrinking cc list because I think I've said too much on -devel already)
> Hi Pat,
> Patrick Ouellette wrote:
> > I was under the impression that neither package was going to move forward with
> > a binary named "node" 
> >
> > The proposal was made for a transition plan to be made then the nodejs 
> > person quit talking/posting.
> I think you misunderstood before.  Ian suggested a way to move forward
> without having to rely on good faith on both sides:
>  1. "node" maintainer and "nodejs" maintainers prepare packages that
>     remove the "node" command.
>  2. Maintainer of one of the two packages uploads both.
>  3. Usual mechanisms (release team, etc) ensure that the "node"
>     command is not reintroduced.
> I think the maintainers of both packages were ok with that, but then
> step (1) never happened.  I proposed a patch for the node package that
> does not involve removing the "node" command, and got no response,
> except a comment criticizing me for not being a ham radio user or
> testing it.  I proposed a patch for the nodejs package that does not
> involve removing the "node" command, and it was applied.

This is what I understood, and as a maintainer for "one of the packages"
I was waiting for information from the node.js camp (agreement, etc.).
I think the issue here is getting the nodejs maintainers onboard.
That would be Jérémy Lal & Jonas Smedegaard.  I don't recall seeing
either of them weigh in on the issue *ever*a (I could be wrong, it is
late in the afternoon after a long day at work.)

> Everyone has been quiet because talking is exhausting.  Action that
> prevents the need to talk and guess about people would be much
> appreciated.
> A lot of time has passed since then.  Several people mentioned that
> just like the case of Solomon offering to split a baby in two, the
> option of both renaming is meant to force a decision, not to encourage
> the project to cut off its nose to spite its face.  I personally
> believe that if you consider the projects independently of Debian:
>  - LinuxNode would benefit from renaming its binary to something
>    that does not conflict with Node.js
>  - Node.js would benefit from having a synonym that does not conflict
>    with LinuxNode

The ham radio node package was uploaded in 2005.  The binary existed as 
part of ax25-tools before then.  (At least I think it was the -tools 
package, could have been libax25 or ax25-apps)  How many ham radio operators
expect a linux system to have /usr/sbin/node be the ham radio node package -
I don't know.  I do know none of them expect it to be the node.js node package.

It is perfectly reasonable to have a transition plan to a new name.  Given the
age of the two packages, I'm not inclined to give up without a good reason.
I know many ham radio operators who have equipment in difficult to reach
areas (mountain tops for instance) who would have systems break on upgrade
if /usr/sbin/node goes away abruptly.

> Maybe wheezy could be released with both /usr/bin/node and
> /usr/sbin/node present, and with configuration migrated to point to
> /usr/sbin/ax25-node.  That configuration migrated part is way more
> important than the disposition of the "node" command, in my humble
> opinion.

Policy does not allow this.  If it did, we wouldn't be having this discussion.


> Patrick Ouellette       | It is not fitting, when one is in God's service,  <
> pat(at)flying-gecko.net | to have a gloomy face or a chilling look.         <
> Amateur Radio: NE4PO    | -- Francis of Assisi                              <

Reply to: