Re: JNOS in Debian
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 09:30:10PM +0000, Iain R. Learmonth wrote:
> > BUT in reading your last paragraph where you suggest that because
> > for nodejs to hijack/appropiate this name, 'node' is entirely past
> > because ax25-node is being dropped by you, Debian, it is now alright
> > anything I can tolerate. It seems to me that you are speaking far to
> > sweepingly for the Linux Community in general and you're actually
> > looking to reintroduce the 'bug' that originally existed. Debian it's
> > self required, nay forced the name change originally even though node
> > had been used by ax25 far longer than the js folks.
>
> Dropping ax25-node is being considered for the following reasons:
>
> * There is currently no active maintainer for ax25-node
> * The last update to this package by the team was in 2009 and that was the
> maintainer resigning.
> * The last actual maintainence update was in 2008.
> * There is an important bug on this package (#777013)
> * There is a normal bug on this package (#399464)
> * There are 2 lintian errors on this package, along with 20 warnings
> * Build log checks report 1 error and 1 warning about this package
> * The updates made to comply with the tech-ctte decision (#614907) had to be
> made by NMU
> * This package is no longer maintained upstream
> * A bug was filed indicating this package would be removed (#778843) and no
> objections have been put forward on this bug
> * The package depends on update-inetd which currently has no maintainer
> (#719794)
>
> These bugs have been filed in our public bug tracker and anyone is welcome to
> comment on them. If the above problems can be fixed, then there is no longer
> any need to drop the package. Given it has no upstream maintainer at this time
> however, it is likely it will have to be removed futher down the line anyway
> due to incompatible changes in other parts of the system. Discussion regarding
> the release of the "node" name would take place on debian-devel before being
> implemented. Consensus would have to be reached before any such change could
> happen. Nothing is decided yet and if there is anything being overlooked,
> constructive input on the debian-hams list or on bug reports is the best way to
> highlight the problems.
>
I do not believe dropping ax25-node would necessarily allow another package
to use the generic name "node" - the technical committee ruled and set the
names for what is now ax25-node and nodejs. During the discussion one point
everyone pretty much agreed on was "node" was way too generic of a name for
a binary or package.
As for your list of problems with the ax25-node package, it is not necessary.
Just like any other package someone has to have time, desire, and skill to fix
the bugs or the package should eventually be removed. I would note that a
package that has only 1 outstanding actual bug (and one that is a wishlist to
replace it with UROnode #778843, which should not be a bug against ax25-node
but a WNPP bug entry filed by the author or UROnode), is really doing pretty
well all things considered. None of the bugs you list are of a severity that
mandates dropping ax25-node. It has maintainers listed who are not MIA, and
just might find some time to do some work on the package.
Lintian errors and warnings are most likely result of policy changes
over time.
Lack of upstream or other changes can mean the package does what it was
designed to do well enough. Stability in a package is not necessarily
a bad thing. (Stagnation can be a different issue)
There is nothing that says ax25-node and UROnode can not both exist in Debian.
73,
Pat NE4PO
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)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=ij+6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: