On Sun, May 06, 2012 at 09:49:11PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
On 12-05-06 at 10:22am, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sat, May 05, 2012 at 03:07:27AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
We have until now maintained Nodejs only in unstable because
requests to rename axnode was met with either
OoO Pendant le journal télévisé du lundi 07 mai 2012, vers 20:41, Philip
Hands p...@hands.com disait :
Package: node
Depends: ax25-node
Conflicts: nodejs
-- /usr/sbin/node - /usr/sbin/ax25-node
Package: ax25-node
-- /usr/sbin/ax25-node
Package: nodejs
Conflicts: node
--
On 12-05-07 at 11:28pm, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sun, May 06, 2012 at 09:49:11PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
On 12-05-06 at 10:22am, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sat, May 05, 2012 at 03:07:27AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
We have until now maintained Nodejs only in unstable because
On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 12:41:40PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
David Weinehall t...@debian.org writes:
Wasn't the main reason (apart from the seniority argument) for
preserving the node name for ax25 to prevent remote unmonitored highly
important systems from failing?
If such systems
On Sun, 6 May 2012 10:29:18 -0700, Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote:
On Sat, May 05, 2012 at 08:29:40AM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
How about doing the following:
node package replaced by a node-legacy package that contains no more
than a README and a symlink node -- ax25-node,
On 07/05/12 19:41, Philip Hands wrote:
The -legacy was meant
to be an attention grabber, and perhaps to reflect a hope that at some
point in the future one or both upstreams might switch to a better name.
I think legacy is rather misleading, since its upstream
(unfortunately) doesn't think
On Mon, May 07, 2012 at 07:41:33PM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
[snip]
It also prevents a HAM from deciding to dabble in Node.js while
preserving the 'node' name for their ax25 use.
Wasn't the main reason (apart from the seniority argument) for
preserving the node name for ax25 to prevent remote
David Weinehall t...@debian.org writes:
Wasn't the main reason (apart from the seniority argument) for
preserving the node name for ax25 to prevent remote unmonitored highly
important systems from failing?
If such systems are highly important, should we accomodate them
remaining unmonitored?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
Le 05/05/12 09:29, Philip Hands a écrit :
On Fri, 4 May 2012 19:00:10 +0200, Pau Garcia i Quiles
pgqui...@elpauer.org wrote: ...
Agreed. That's why my proposal was that *all* of those (Debian,
Fedora, Suse, MacPorts and brew) did the rename,
Thibaut Paumard paum...@users.sourceforge.net writes:
As I understand it, Policy is broken here: if the two binaries where
installed in /usr/bin, it would be fine (Policy-wise) to Conflict.
Our current Policy specifically prohibits that. See Policy 10.1:
Two different packages must not
On Sat, May 05, 2012 at 08:29:40AM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
How about doing the following:
node package replaced by a node-legacy package that contains no more
than a README and a symlink node -- ax25-node, and depends on
ax25-node
As mentioned by Carsten Hey on debian-ctte, we
On Sat, May 05, 2012 at 03:07:27AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
We have until now maintained Nodejs only in unstable because requests to
rename axnode was met with either silence or refusal with the reasoning
that axnode was more widely used in Debian than Nodejs.
Obviously Nodejs is not
Greetings, dear Debian developer,
[replying via bugreport as I am not subscribed to tech-ctte@d.o]
On 12-05-06 at 10:22am, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sat, May 05, 2012 at 03:07:27AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
We have until now maintained Nodejs only in unstable because
requests to rename
Le dimanche 6 mai 2012 21:49:11, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit :
Greetings, dear Debian developer,
[replying via bugreport as I am not subscribed to tech-ctte@d.o]
On 12-05-06 at 10:22am, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sat, May 05, 2012 at 03:07:27AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
We have until
On 12-05-06 at 11:00pm, Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
Le dimanche 6 mai 2012 21:49:11, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit :
Greetings, dear Debian developer,
[replying via bugreport as I am not subscribed to tech-ctte@d.o]
On 12-05-06 at 10:22am, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sat, May 05, 2012 at
On Fri, 4 May 2012 19:00:10 +0200, Pau Garcia i Quiles pgqui...@elpauer.org
wrote:
...
Agreed. That's why my proposal was that *all* of those (Debian,
Fedora, Suse, MacPorts and brew) did the rename, not just us (Debian).
It's certainly not nice to push upstream to do something they don't
Le Thu, May 03, 2012 at 12:39:04PM -0400, Joey Hess a écrit :
Consider a package that contains a node.js script, which is not the
primary purpose of the package. So it Recommends, rather than depends
on nodejs. (Let's assume it uses #!/usr/bin/env node, and for the sake
of example is
On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 6:53 PM, Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote:
Hi Pau,
On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 04:24:21PM +0200, Pau Garcia i Quiles wrote:
Regarding the often-mentioned many users run 'node script' from the
command-line... so what? If we can get enough distributions (Debian,
Suse,
On 12-05-02 at 05:10pm, Patrick Ouellette wrote:
On Tue, May 01, 2012 at 08:22:05PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Maybe we should short-circuit this part of the conversation, since
it doesn't sound like you're horribly interested in agreeing to
change the name of node in the existing
Charles Plessy wrote:
If we would tolerate conflicts, we would not support the parallel use of some
of our packages, but there would be the benefit that the package dependancy
graph could be parsed to report clusters of mutually-incompatible packages.
Often, these incompatibilities will not
+++ Patrick Ouellette [2012-05-01 23:12 -0400]:
Of course the #! line is not the issue. The issue is two upstream maintainers
separated by years and miles selected the same generic name for their binary
file. Compounding the issue, some Debian Maintainer seeking to better the
project by
Wookey woo...@wookware.org writes:
Just a quick question - is there an easy way to do this? I worry
sometimes that I might be creating a binary name that is already used
somewhere, and thus a potential clash, but it is not obvious to me how
to check. Strictly this applies to every file in a
On Wed, 2 May 2012 17:53:54 +0100
Wookey woo...@wookware.org wrote:
+++ Patrick Ouellette [2012-05-01 23:12 -0400]:
file. Compounding the issue, some Debian Maintainer seeking to better the
project by packaging additional software for the project failed to perform
due diligence in
]] Wookey
Just a quick question - is there an easy way to do this?
Given most names don't explain particularly well what the command does,
just use something inspired by pwgen.
--
Tollef Fog Heen
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On Wed, 2012-05-02 at 17:53 +0100, Wookey wrote:
+++ Patrick Ouellette [2012-05-01 23:12 -0400]:
Of course the #! line is not the issue. The issue is two upstream
maintainers
separated by years and miles selected the same generic name for their binary
file. Compounding the issue, some
On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 05:53:54PM +0100, Wookey wrote:
Just a quick question - is there an easy way to do this? I worry
sometimes that I might be creating a binary name that is already used
somewhere, and thus a potential clash, but it is not obvious to me how
to check. Strictly this applies
Patrick Ouellette poue...@debian.org writes:
I'm more than a bit disappointed that this will be the second time a ham
radio tool in Debian is forced to use a name the wider Linux ham
community does not use. No one seems to be considering the issues or
complications caused to the ham users.
On Tue, May 01, 2012 at 08:22:05PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Maybe we should short-circuit this part of the conversation, since it
doesn't sound like you're horribly interested in agreeing to change the
name of node in the existing package. :)
Actually, despite my vigorous defense of the
On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 06:43:04PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
There's also http://packages.debian.org/#search_contents which can
search for files listed within packages.
That's where I check.
Pat
--
,-.
Patrick
Hi all,
I think that we are asking the impossible, to be universal, cover a large
number of fields, and fit all of this in a single name space witout conflicts.
With our current approach, to rename at least one of the program names, we make
Debian systems incompatible with outside documentation
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 08:39:41PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
Node.js is becoming quite popular and is known generally to use node
in its hash-bang.
Seriously? People are writing scripts that start
#!node
That is truely messed up!
Pat
--
Patrick Ouellette poue...@debian.org writes:
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 08:39:41PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
Node.js is becoming quite popular and is known generally to use node
in its hash-bang.
Seriously? People are writing scripts that start
#!node
The #! part is really not the
On Tue, May 01, 2012 at 03:24:58PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Date: Tue, 01 May 2012 15:24:58 -0700
From: Russ Allbery r...@debian.org
Subject: Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Node.js and it's future in debian
To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Patrick Ouellette poue...@debian.org writes
Patrick Ouellette poue...@debian.org writes:
Of course the #! line is not the issue. The issue is two upstream
maintainers separated by years and miles selected the same generic name
for their binary file.
I agree with this.
Compounding the issue, some Debian Maintainer seeking to better
+1 to let Node.js be just node
--
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/4f9ea18a.8030...@gmail.com
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 08:39:41PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
On 12-04-28 at 01:50pm, Joey Hess wrote:
Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
As I understand the current status, it has already on this list been
resolved that *both* packages should back off from using the
clashing name node.
On Apr 29, Harald Jenny har...@a-little-linux-box.at wrote:
Wouldn't this solve the whole dilemma in a policy compliant and easy
enough fashion that it could be used or what error is there in my idea?
If fixing a real world problem requires so much overhead because of
policy concerns then it
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 04:23:25PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Apr 29, Harald Jenny har...@a-little-linux-box.at wrote:
Wouldn't this solve the whole dilemma in a policy compliant and easy
enough fashion that it could be used or what error is there in my idea?
If fixing a real world
On Apr 29, Harald Jenny har...@a-little-linux-box.at wrote:
Agreed but how long would it take to fix the policy vs how long would it
take to produce this package in the face of next stable release?
The current situation does not even cause any practical problems, just
a policy violation.
--
On 12-04-28 at 03:31am, Carl Fürstenberg wrote:
There has been an log struggle between the nodejs package and the node
package, which is still unresolved (bug #611698 for example) And I
wonder now what the future should look like.
To summarize the problem:
* the nodejs upstream binary is
Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
As I understand the current status, it has already on this list been
resolved that *both* packages should back off from using the clashing
name node.
I also am biased in one direction but shall not say which as I see no
benefit at this point in rehashing the
On 12-04-28 at 01:50pm, Joey Hess wrote:
Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
As I understand the current status, it has already on this list been
resolved that *both* packages should back off from using the
clashing name node.
I also am biased in one direction but shall not say which as I see
42 matches
Mail list logo
