Sounding off with a significant amount of restraint... On 05/01/2012 06:16 PM, Patrick Ouellette wrote: > 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 <jrnie...@gmail.com> >> Subject: Re: Node.js and it's future in debian >> To: Patrick Ouellette <ne...@arrl.net> >> Cc: n...@packages.debian.org, nod...@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.
_ALL_ that use it _EXPECT_ /usr/bin/node to be in place and usable; and you are correct that node.js is totally unwelcome. > 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. Changing it would break HUNDREDS if not THOUSANDS of systems worldwide! >> 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. > > Pat > All this (on this thread and in other threads) makes me wonder why a rule is not in place that requires one to be a ham radio operator before being allowed to mess with ham radio software. Dave - KB3EFS -- David A Aitcheson david.aitche...@gmail.com Go Green! Print this email only when necessary. _______________________________________________ Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel
