Re: Two groups of users, one distro in the middle
* Josselin Mouette [2011-11-16 18:23]: > Reality check: it is not a question of number of users, but a question > of which package has the most stubborn maintainer… You mean like those of a well known desktop environment wrt nm? /me puts the mirror down Yours Martin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/2016200242.gl10...@anguilla.debian.or.at
Re: Two groups of users, one distro in the middle
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 01:21:17AM +0700, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > Why do noone comment on the point raised that the ham tool possibly can > change the name of its binary without involving its end-users, whereas > changing the name of the nodejs binary affects all end-users directly? > I commented on it earlier - you can not control the user community and how they use the software on their machines. Just because the software is only installed automatically with a specific configuration does not mean that that configuration is the only configuration in use. Changing the name of *any* binary has the potential for creating unintended consequences for the end users. Pat -- Patrick Ouellette p...@flying-gecko.net ne4po (at) arrl (dot) net Amateur Radio: NE4PO What kind of change have you been in the world today? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/2016194352.ga21...@flying-gecko.net
Re: Two groups of users, one distro in the middle
[with apologies for the original broken reply] On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 01:21:17 +0700, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: On 11-11-16 at 07:08pm, Bernd Zeimetz wrote: On 11/15/2011 01:48 AM, Paul Wise wrote: > I personally wonder if we should change our policy instead of > forcing these two upstream communities into conflict. I think we should for these cases where it is obvious that one software exists for a much longer time than the other. We should not force old projects to rename themselves just because the developers of a new project did not investigate if they use an existing name. Checking filenames of the largest distributions is not hard. Who says the package maintainers of nodejs did not investigate the use of an existing name? I assumed Bernd meant upstream could have checked. Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/b2da8790f848e688d050cd018cf2e...@mail.adsl.funky-badger.org
Re: Two groups of users, one distro in the middle
On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 01:21:17 +0700, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: On 11-11-16 at 07:08pm, Bernd Zeimetz wrote: On 11/15/2011 01:48 AM, Paul Wise wrote: > I personally wonder if we should change our policy instead of > forcing these two upstream communities into conflict. I think we should for these cases where it is obvious that one software exists for a much longer time than the other. We should not force old projects to rename themselves just because the developers of a new project did not investigate if they use an existing name. Checking filenames of the largest distributions is not hard. Who says the package maintainers of nodejs did not investigate the use of an existing name? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/ad633eee28722ecf5e46ac738ea87...@mail.adsl.funky-badger.org
Re: Two groups of users, one distro in the middle
On 11/16/2011 05:23 PM, Nick Leverton wrote: > On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 06:48:02PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: >> >> There is no one way to deal with this, we should only deal with this >> on a case-by-case basis and use a number of strategies. ... > >> encourage our upstreams to rename and or work it out between them. If >> they are willing, great, if not, add Conflicts to the Debian packages >> and be done with it. Forcing the creation of a pair of >> incompatibilities between Debian and upstreams doesn't help anyone. It does help the users who use both packages which is the reason why conflicts should *NOT* be used unless both packages provide the same functionality. Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4ec4057c.80...@debian.org
Re: Two groups of users, one distro in the middle
On 11-11-16 at 07:08pm, Bernd Zeimetz wrote: > On 11/15/2011 01:48 AM, Paul Wise wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 8:14 AM, Alex Pennace wrote: > > > >> Even without that point, the conclusion remains the same: Both > >> projects should endure the rename (unless one concedes), and that > >> shouldn't be viewed in terms of "look at what those meanies in > >> Debian are making us do" but instead regarded as a natural outcome > >> of the choices each project made at various times. > > > > I personally wonder if we should change our policy instead of > > forcing these two upstream communities into conflict. > > I think we should for these cases where it is obvious that one > software exists for a much longer time than the other. We should not > force old projects to rename themselves just because the developers of > a new project did not investigate if they use an existing name. > Checking filenames of the largest distributions is not hard. Who says the package maintainers of nodejs did not investigate the use of an existing name? Why do noone comment on the point raised that the ham tool possibly can change the name of its binary without involving its end-users, whereas changing the name of the nodejs binary affects all end-users directly? - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Two groups of users, one distro in the middle
On 11/15/2011 01:48 AM, Paul Wise wrote: > On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 8:14 AM, Alex Pennace wrote: > >> Even without that point, the conclusion remains the same: Both >> projects should endure the rename (unless one concedes), and that >> shouldn't be viewed in terms of "look at what those meanies in Debian >> are making us do" but instead regarded as a natural outcome of the >> choices each project made at various times. > > I personally wonder if we should change our policy instead of forcing > these two upstream communities into conflict. I think we should for these cases where it is obvious that one software exists for a much longer time than the other. We should not force old projects to rename themselves just because the developers of a new project did not investigate if they use an existing name. Checking filenames of the largest distributions is not hard. -- Bernd ZeimetzDebian GNU/Linux Developer http://bzed.dehttp://www.debian.org GPG Fingerprints: ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485 DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4ec3fc3a.5040...@bzed.de
Re: Two groups of users, one distro in the middle
Le mercredi 16 novembre 2011 à 18:48 +0800, Paul Wise a écrit : > On the other side of a similar coin, the epiphany browser has way more > users than the epiphany game, but it "lost". Reality check: it is not a question of number of users, but a question of which package has the most stubborn maintainer… -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' `- signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Two groups of users, one distro in the middle
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 06:48:02PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > > There is no one way to deal with this, we should only deal with this > on a case-by-case basis and use a number of strategies. ... > encourage our upstreams to rename and or work it out between them. If > they are willing, great, if not, add Conflicts to the Debian packages > and be done with it. Forcing the creation of a pair of > incompatibilities between Debian and upstreams doesn't help anyone. +1 Nick -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/2016162308.ga1...@leverton.org
Re: Two groups of users, one distro in the middle
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 12:04 AM, Joey Hess wrote: > chromium the browser conflicted with chromium the game and won As the person who did the renaming of that in Debian and upstream; it was a no-brainer, there was no winning or losing. The game was always "Chromium B.S.U.", the sf.net project was chromium-bsu and it was just a bug that the upstream tarball wasn't named chromium-bsu. On the other side of a similar coin, the epiphany browser has way more users than the epiphany game, but it "lost". There is no one way to deal with this, we should only deal with this on a case-by-case basis and use a number of strategies. Complain *before* overly generically named projects enter Debian. Name our source packages the same as our binary packages and use prefixes (like firmware-, fonts-, printer-driver-, r-cran-, python-) on our binary packages to reduce the chance of conflicts. In the event of conflicts encourage our upstreams to rename and or work it out between them. If they are willing, great, if not, add Conflicts to the Debian packages and be done with it. Forcing the creation of a pair of incompatibilities between Debian and upstreams doesn't help anyone. I definitely agree with your point that the costs are Debian's only, the upstreams will continue to not care or just deride Debian or our users whenever they come complaining to them with a problem that we created. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caktje6hrxqno3g4cpdbsuqnkoqwcyfy6cxcgtqtmzimzr9g...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Two groups of users, one distro in the middle
Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > ]] sean finney > > | export PATH=/usr/lib/nodejs:$PATH > | > | and problem solved, right? > > PATH isn't considered for #! lines, so not really. It is if you use #!/usr/bin/env node -- John H. Robinson, IV jaq...@debian.org http WARNING: I cannot be held responsible for the above, sbih.org ( )(:[ as apparently my cats have learned how to type. spiders.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/2015182353.ga7...@a.mx.sbih.org
Re: Two groups of users, one distro in the middle
]] sean finney | export PATH=/usr/lib/nodejs:$PATH | | and problem solved, right? PATH isn't considered for #! lines, so not really. -- Tollef Fog Heen UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87bosdnvjh@qurzaw.varnish-software.com
Re: Two groups of users, one distro in the middle
Alex Pennace wrote: > Clearly, the nodejs community would not be pleased. On the other hand, > the AX25 community would not be pleased about being forced to rename > if it fell on them. So the real question is which community should > bear the costs of resolving this conflict? > > At this stage, it looks like neither side is willing to budge, so > logic and Debian policy say both must bear the costs. That seemed to make sense the first time I read it, but the more I think about it the less convinced I am. The actual costs of Debian renaming both `node`s will mostly be borne by Debian, and our users, not by the upstream projects. There's really no point in trying to punish the upstreams at all, because the next naming conflict is sure to involve two different upstreams; such punishment has no deterrent value, and only sours things. And not letting the most-popular name win flies in the face of recent history: chromium the browser conflicted with chromium the game and won; git the VCS conflicted with git the little-used gnu tools, and won. -- see shy jo, who is currently involved in a naming conflict over "parallel" signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Two groups of users, one distro in the middle
On Tue, 2011-11-15 at 13:34, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Charles Plessy writes ("Re: Two groups of users, one distro in the middle"):
> > I agree. One possiblity when packages A and B conflict for a program name
> > would be to rename, but in addition to provide a wrapper that executes the
> > program from A when only A is installed, from B when only B is installed,
> > and
> > that gives an error reporting alternative path names when both A and B are
> > installed. The wrappers for all names could be provided by a third package.
>
> I don't think this ia a good idea. The result would be that
> installing an additional package could break the operation of
> an unrelated package.
>
> If users desperately want to do this themselves there is no reason why
> they shouldn't symlink /usr/bin/node -> nodejs themselves - apart
> from, of course, the reasons why they shouldn't.
>
> But we should absolutely not support it. I have no sympathy at all
> for nodejs upstream on this matter.
As a user/admin I fully agree with you. Debian policy should be changed
to state something like "First come, first served". Principle of least
surprise.
ax25 packages are in Debian for more than ten years, IIRC.
What to do if someone create {some}script language and call it 'cat' and
refuse to rename it because s/he like cats. ;-)
--
Kind regards, Milan
--
Arvanta, IT Securityhttp://www.arvanta.net
Please do not send me e-mail containing HTML code or documents in
proprietary format (word, excel, pps and so on)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201518.ga24...@arvanta.net
Re: Two groups of users, one distro in the middle
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 03:33:02PM +0100, Gergely Nagy wrote: > Furthermore, packages in Debian are - to the best of my knowledge - > adapted already to use /usr/bin/nodejs, packages outside can still work > unmodified, if the user makes a simple symlink. Document this, and all's > well. I don't think the symlink is even necessary, and is probably a bad idea in case the other package providing node was installed. instead, ship the binary in /usr/lib/nodejs/node (or similar), and instruct users that if they need "upstream compatibility", to simply export PATH=/usr/lib/nodejs:$PATH and problem solved, right? sean -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/2015152833.ga21...@cobija.connexer.com
Re: Two groups of users, one distro in the middle
Paul Wise writes: > On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 8:14 AM, Alex Pennace wrote: > >> Even without that point, the conclusion remains the same: Both >> projects should endure the rename (unless one concedes), and that >> shouldn't be viewed in terms of "look at what those meanies in Debian >> are making us do" but instead regarded as a natural outcome of the >> choices each project made at various times. > > I personally wonder if we should change our policy instead of forcing > these two upstream communities into conflict. In that case, I'll consider un-deprecating dpatch, and since it can very well be used outside of Debian, rename it to patch. Looking at our reverse deps and build-deps, as far as build-deps are concerned, the patch and dpatch camp is farily equal (937 vs 764), which is a much much smaller difference than in the node-vs-nodejs case, so I'll be looking forward to having patch renamed to patch.gnu or similar. (FYI, I'm a reasonablye person, so as long as patch gets renamed, I'll be content with my patch being patch.dpatch, and I'm willing to bear the consequences of having to adapt all scripts that use the old name, to use the new one.) Just because two upstreams can't agree, and both choose a name far too generic, we shouldn't make our policies more forgiving to such sillyness. Furthermore, packages in Debian are - to the best of my knowledge - adapted already to use /usr/bin/nodejs, packages outside can still work unmodified, if the user makes a simple symlink. Document this, and all's well. Perhaps this will stop another upstream from choosing a similarly generic name. In all honesty, I fail to see the harm done, apart from some very minor inconvenience, which can be trivially worked around. -- |8] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87zkfxihgh.fsf@algernon.balabit
Re: Two groups of users, one distro in the middle
Charles Plessy writes ("Re: Two groups of users, one distro in the middle"):
> I agree. One possiblity when packages A and B conflict for a program name
> would be to rename, but in addition to provide a wrapper that executes the
> program from A when only A is installed, from B when only B is installed, and
> that gives an error reporting alternative path names when both A and B are
> installed. The wrappers for all names could be provided by a third package.
I don't think this ia a good idea. The result would be that
installing an additional package could break the operation of
an unrelated package.
If users desperately want to do this themselves there is no reason why
they shouldn't symlink /usr/bin/node -> nodejs themselves - apart
from, of course, the reasons why they shouldn't.
But we should absolutely not support it. I have no sympathy at all
for nodejs upstream on this matter.
Ian.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
http://lists.debian.org/20162.27255.473822.488...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: Two groups of users, one distro in the middle
Le Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 08:48:57AM +0800, Paul Wise a écrit : > On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 8:14 AM, Alex Pennace wrote: > > > Even without that point, the conclusion remains the same: Both > > projects should endure the rename (unless one concedes), and that > > shouldn't be viewed in terms of "look at what those meanies in Debian > > are making us do" but instead regarded as a natural outcome of the > > choices each project made at various times. > > I personally wonder if we should change our policy instead of forcing > these two upstream communities into conflict. I agree. One possiblity when packages A and B conflict for a program name would be to rename, but in addition to provide a wrapper that executes the program from A when only A is installed, from B when only B is installed, and that gives an error reporting alternative path names when both A and B are installed. The wrappers for all names could be provided by a third package. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/2015094358.ge27...@merveille.plessy.net
Re: Two groups of users, one distro in the middle
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 8:14 AM, Alex Pennace wrote: > Even without that point, the conclusion remains the same: Both > projects should endure the rename (unless one concedes), and that > shouldn't be viewed in terms of "look at what those meanies in Debian > are making us do" but instead regarded as a natural outcome of the > choices each project made at various times. I personally wonder if we should change our policy instead of forcing these two upstream communities into conflict. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAKTje6H5X+UUa0AuARqkos_grxfPTn5RbM+UqzoO=wwxsv+...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Two groups of users, one distro in the middle
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 05:50:08PM -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Alex Pennace wrote: > > > According to [1], this isn't the first time the nodejs folks ran into > > a name problem. Up until March of 2009 they were using the name > > "server," > > I suspect this was just a working title for the program being > developed, in the half month before Ryan was able to come up with a > real name[2]. I mentioned it in [1] just as a "Why the name?" factoid > and have regretted mentioning it ever since. > > > [1] http://bugs.debian.org/611698#40 > [2] commit 19478ed4: 'Major refactoring: program name now "node"', > 2009-03-03. Fair enough, I withdraw that assertion. Even without that point, the conclusion remains the same: Both projects should endure the rename (unless one concedes), and that shouldn't be viewed in terms of "look at what those meanies in Debian are making us do" but instead regarded as a natural outcome of the choices each project made at various times. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/2015001402.gb3...@buick.pennace.org
Re: Two groups of users, one distro in the middle
Hi, Alex Pennace wrote: > According to [1], this isn't the first time the nodejs folks ran into > a name problem. Up until March of 2009 they were using the name > "server," I suspect this was just a working title for the program being developed, in the half month before Ryan was able to come up with a real name[2]. I mentioned it in [1] just as a "Why the name?" factoid and have regretted mentioning it ever since. > [1] http://bugs.debian.org/611698#40 [2] commit 19478ed4: 'Major refactoring: program name now "node"', 2009-03-03. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/2014235008.ga5...@elie.hsd1.il.comcast.net
Two groups of users, one distro in the middle
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 09:09:09PM +0100, Vincent Bernat wrote: > OoO En ce début d'après-midi nuageux du lundi 07 novembre 2011, vers > 14:42, Ian Jackson disait : > > > 2a. Likewise the maintainer of "nodejs" should prepare a version > > of the package where the "node" binary is called "nodejs". > > As Patrick said earlier in the thread that not enough members seem to > care about this, I add my voice here: node from node.js is often used in > shebang while node from AX25 is not. Having a "nodejs" binary will > cause many difficulties to our users. While on the one hand, nodejs's claim to "node" is supported by ample use in shebang lines, on the other hand AX25's claim to "node" is supported by the fact that it was established well before the nodejs project came along. According to [1], this isn't the first time the nodejs folks ran into a name problem. Up until March of 2009 they were using the name "server," a far too generic name that compelled them to switch to the current "node." Even then they should have realized that the new name was too generic. In any case, the choice of name wasn't Debian's fault. > What if the problem was raised ten years ago about Python for > example. What an horrible mess it would be today if the python binary > was called "python-py" or "python-script". We'll never know. Python didn't choose a name that was too generic. > See how communities may react to this. Ruby community does not like our > packaging just because we enforce stability over freshness. What would > think node.js community if we are using /usr/bin/nodejs instead of > /usr/bin/node. Clearly, the nodejs community would not be pleased. On the other hand, the AX25 community would not be pleased about being forced to rename if it fell on them. So the real question is which community should bear the costs of resolving this conflict? At this stage, it looks like neither side is willing to budge, so logic and Debian policy say both must bear the costs. > Debian would be listed as a black sheep in every FAQ or > tutorial and users will be invited to just install some non official > package or use the source. I would hope that those FAQs spell out the real reason for the discrepency, which is there was a name conflict and Debian, in an attempt to serve both communities fairly, made both packages rename away from "node." Alternately, the nodejs folks could switch to the name "nodejs" upstream as well. [1] http://bugs.debian.org/611698#40 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/2014224322.ga3...@buick.pennace.org
