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

Re: tech-ctte: please help maintainers of packages with a "node" command to have a reasonable conversation

Jonathan Nieder writes ("tech-ctte: please help maintainers of packages with a "node" command to have a reasonable conversation"):
> The "node" and "nodejs" packages both provide a command named "node".

I'm disappointed to see this is still rumbling on.  There is only one
correct solution, and it is this:

> In the long term, I would be happiest if both were renamed.

I think the TC should rule along the following lines:

 1. We agree with the Policy requirements in this area.

 2. In this case, neither package is entitled to this name.
 3. All relevant packages must be changed (in unstable, experimental
    and testing) not to provide a command "node".  This means that
    no package may:
      - install a file "node" in any of the common PATH directories;
      - install a manpage for a command "node";
      - attempt by any other means to provide a command "node"; or
      - declare conflicts against "nodejs" or "node";
    except as approved by the TC, or as explicitly agreed by the
    maintainers of both the "node" and "nodejs" packages, such
    agreement to be notified to the TC.

 4. If any package in unstable or experimental violates the rules
    above later than <28 days from now>, this is cause for an NMU, and
    in that case we specifically encourage the maintainer of the
    competing package to make such an NMU.  Each maintainer is
    entitled to do this even if they have not yet fixed their own

 5. If such an NMU is needed the person doing it is entitled to simply
    rename offending files in the package without considering
    compatibility or transitional arrangements.

 7. Bugs arising in Debian due to the renaming of either version of
    "node" are bugs in the depending packages, not in any package
    which no longer provides "node".  Specifically, compatibility
    issues due to the renaming should not block testing propagation of
    the renamed packages.

 8. If a fix is needed in testing and cannot be made expeditiously via
    unstable, the potential NMUer should consult the release team to
    ask how to proceed (perhaps an update via testing-proposed-updates
    will help).

 9. No package may in the future provide a command "node" without
    permission from the TC.

This gives each maintainer 4 further weeks to construct and implement
a transition plan for their package.  Such a transition plan is of
course something each maintainer should already have ready, since the
policy requirement is very clear.  There is no further excuse for any


Reply to: