Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Node.js and it's future in debian
On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 01:34:47AM +0200, Jérémy Lal wrote:
>
> On 02/05/2012 00:16, Patrick Ouellette wrote:
> >>
> >> (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.)
>
> The issue was described by me and others in :
> http://bugs.debian.org/597571
> http://bugs.debian.org/611698
> http://bugs.debian.org/614907
> and summed up in this thread and the previous ones.
>
(I added leader@debian.org to the Cc: because this is something that
I think needs addressed at the leadership level)
This is ridiculous. You clearly show you KNOW there is a conflict if
you use the binary name, ask for the incumbent to change (they refuse)
so you force the issue by releasing a package with the conflicting name
*anyway*
> >From the nodejs side, i don't see what we can say that hasn't been said.
> >From the hamradio side, we are just waiting for an experienced user to
> explain how /usr/sbin/node is called, from command-line, from init scripts,
> from shebangs ?
> Subsidiary :
> Are there any cheap radio hardware i could buy to test it in a real setup ?
You would need an amateur radio license in the jurisdiction you live in.
It might be easier for you to look for a local ham radio operator/club
and see if they use Linux and the ax25 software.
Pat
Reply to: