[Pkg-javascript-devel] Bug#711810: npm: bash completion script clobbers $COMP_WORDBREAKS

[Jonathan Nieder]

Package: npm
Version: 1.1.4~dfsg-2
Severity: important
Tags: upstream

While investigating another bug related to $COMP_WORDBREAKS, I noticed
the following:

$ echo $COMP_WORDBREAKS
"'@><=;|&(:
$ . /etc/bash_completion
$ echo $COMP_WORDBREAKS
"'><;|&(:

That's due to the following code from /etc/bash_completion.d/npm:

COMP_WORDBREAKS=${COMP_WORDBREAKS/=/}
COMP_WORDBREAKS=${COMP_WORDBREAKS/@/}
export COMP_WORDBREAKS

I assume the intent is to change how wordbreaking works in the npm
completion script (so that e.g. "npm ls =isaa" can complete to "npm ls
=isaacs").  See the definition of "__get_comp_words_by_ref -n @=" in
/etc/bash_completion for a better way to do that, which doesn't
clobber state used by other completion scripts.

Thanks and hope that helps,
Jonathan

___
Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list
Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel

[Pkg-javascript-devel] Bug#650345: npm: please consider rewriting shebangs on the fly to refer to "nodejs" name

[Jonathan Nieder]

found 650345 npm/1.1.4~dfsg-2
quit

Hi,

Dominique Dumont wrote:

> # bug has been fixed by Jeremy and Jonas

Thanks for the heads up.  It doesn't seem to be fixed, though:

 $ npm install express
[...]
 $ head -1 node_modules/express/bin/express
 #!/usr/bin/env node
 $ dpkg-query -W npm
 1.1.4~dfsg-2

Regards,
Jonathan

___
Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list
Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Node.js and it's future in debian

[Jonathan Nieder]

David Ranch wrote:

> Is Node.js a new addition to Debian?  Again, I side with first come
> first served.

I think one of Debian's most important roles is to help various
dispersed projects to produce code that works well in combination.
Yes, Node.js is a relatively new addition to the world and Debian
(about 3 years old, not part of squeeze).

___
Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list
Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] tech-ctte: please help maintainers of packages with a "node" command to have a reasonable conversation

[Jonathan Nieder]

Steve Langasek wrote:

> Clint Byrum has nudged me about this (wearing his Ubuntu Server hat rather
> than his shiny new Debian Developer hat) and I've agreed to approach node.js
> upstream about a possible upstream rename.  I'll report back to the TC what
> I find out.

Best of luck.  You know they've been asked twice before (once for Fedora,
once for Debian), right?

I think an easier sell would be:

 - just adding a command upstream, not renaming.  That way, existing
   users are not heavily impacted.  Perhaps there could be a
   ./configure option to disable the "node" command for distros like
   Fedora (and Debian?) that want that.  If the reasons for renaming
   are as strong as I think they are, users would migrate to the new
   name without needing upstream to deprecate the old one right away.

 - someone other than Ryan doing the actual work.  There's a patch to 
   start with at .  I imagine the
   proposed Fedora package could also be helpful to someone working
   on this.

Thanks,
Jonathan

___
Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list
Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Node.js and it's future in debian

[Jonathan Nieder]

Hi again,

Patrick Ouellette wrote:

> I completely agree, but apparently Node.js' upstream has changed the name 
> once previously (apparently from a similar problem) and while acknowledging
> the name is generic and a poor choice refuses to consider another change.
> (According to what I can tell from the Debian discussion.  I have not
> talked to Node.js upstream personally.)

The working title of Node.js was "server" for a few weeks, before
anyone was using it.  When I looked that up in order to understand
what the name "node" was about (in the spirit of [1]) I mentioned this
factoid without making the context sufficiently clear, and I'm sorry
about that[2].

To avoid banging heads against the wall too quickly: I think there are
two aspects that it would be productive to discuss:

 1. Which package should use the name "node" in the long term?  What
can we do to ensure that happens eventually?

(My answer is that I hope that neither uses the name "node" in
the long term.)

 2. What should be the state in Debian's upcoming "wheezy" release to
provide a smooth upgrade path and not surprise users too much?

(My answer is that configuration needs to be smoothly migrated:

 - ax25d.conf by the ax25-tools package
 - inetd configuration by the node package
 - other configuration by the sysadmin, after they are notified
   through a note in node's NEWS.Debian file (shown by
   apt-listchanges) and the release notes

I also would hope that wheezy can include a /usr/sbin/node file
that prints a message to help people notice they are still using
it and calls /usr/sbin/axnode, but that is still under discussion.

Likewise, the Node.js needs some migration to ensure scripts
installed by Debian packages and from outside use the new name.
I would hope that wheezy can include a /usr/bin/node synonym for
compatibility until usage of it fades away, but that is still
under discussion.)

If you disagree with the long-term goal or have ideas for a smoother
migration, that could be useful.

Hope that helps,
Jonathan

[1] http://wiki.debian.org/WhyTheName
[2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2011/11/msg00377.html

___
Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list
Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Request for policy interpretation: procedure and possible outcomes for naming conflicts

[Jonathan Nieder]

Russ Allbery wrote:

> I don't know what to say to this, since this question seems exceedingly
> strange to me.  The way we maintain Policy is by consensus, so if a
> consensus develops around a solution, the answer is obviously yes?  Or,
> perhaps, the answer is obviously no since the same consensus would change
> Policy and the solution would therefore obviously follow Policy?  I don't
> know if one of those answers is what you're driving for.

Yeah, sorry for the lack of context.  I was hoping an answer one way
or another would help conversation move past moments like [1], where I
proposed a way forward (inspired by a message from Marco[2]) and got
no answer about it:

| Policy does not allow this.  If it did, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

> In general, Policy is intended to make our distribution consistent and to
> help our packages integrate.  The end goal is the Debian distribution, not
> following Policy for its own sake.  Obviously, if we come up with a better
> solution than what's currently in Policy, we should do that!

Thanks.  That is what I did a poor job of saying before, and I think
it answers the question well.

Jonathan

[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-hams/2012/05/msg3.html
[2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/04/msg00737.html

___
Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list
Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Request for policy interpretation: procedure and possible outcomes for naming conflicts

[Jonathan Nieder]

Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 02:12:22PM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:

>>   Policy also states that different packages must not install commands
>>   with different functionality with the same name.
>
> Such packages would have to Conflicts anyway, and gratuituous conflict
> must be avoided. This is not a waivable requiremrent.

As a strawman example, here is what I was thinking of when I asked that:

 nodejs package adds a "nodejs" command which behaves exactly like "node"
 in Debian (this has already been done) and upstream (working on it).

 node package renames /usr/sbin/node to /usr/sbin/axnode but keeps
 /usr/sbin/node as a wrapper that prints a warning and then calls axnode
 (a patch doing that has been proposed, but Pat has disparaged it as doing
 too little)

 Packages depending on nodejs use the "nodejs" command instead of "node"
 (this would be a lot of work, but probably doable)

 ax25d and node maintainer scripts update configuration to refer to
 /usr/sbin/axnode instead of /usr/sbin/node (will require ham radio
 maintainer cooperation)

That way:

 - node and nodejs don't conflict

 - while there are two "node" commands, no Debian package uses either

 - people using the "node" command with both packages installed
   know they're asking for trouble and have an alternative available

 - existing scripts and installations using one of the two "node"
   commands are not broken unless the other is also installed

 - installations with /usr/sbin symlinked to /usr/bin are broken.
   But I don't think anyone actually does that on Debian systems.

Maybe this is not a great idea.  My basic question was whether this
kind of thing (i.e., potentially ok outcomes not currently permitted
by policy) is possible or not worth thinking about at all.

___
Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list
Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel

[Pkg-javascript-devel] tech-ctte: please help maintainers of packages with a "node" command to have a reasonable conversation

[Jonathan Nieder]

reassign 614907 tech-ctte
quit

Dear Technical Committee,

The "node" and "nodejs" packages both provide a command named "node".
The command in the node package is in /usr/sbin; the command in nodejs
is in /usr/bin.  Both are very important commands that are widely used
in their respective communities.  Both have, in my humble opinion, too
generic of a name.  When I heard there was a command named "node", I
thought it was going to be a tool for making posts to everything2.com!
In the long term, I would be happiest if both were renamed.

Unfortunately, both have wide current usage.

1. /usr/sbin/node from the node package is a server used in inetd and
   ax25d configuration files to support packet radio networks somehow.
   I am not a subject matter expert, so I cannot say much more.

2. /usr/bin/node is a Javascript interpreter widely used in shebang
   lines like this:

#!/usr/bin/env node

   and in scripts like this:

node /path/to/script.js

In cases like this, Debian policy says that the question should be
taken up on debian-devel and a consensus should determine which
package gets to keep the name.  I believe a consensus really is
forming, but it is hard to respect that given that I don't understand
Pat Ouellette's objections very well.  You can find snippets of the
(long running) conversation in various places:

 http://bugs.debian.org/597571
 http://bugs.debian.org/611698
 http://bugs.debian.org/614907
 https://lists.debian.org/debian-hams/2010/08/msg00031.html
 https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2010/08/msg00568.html
 https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2010/09/msg00460.html
 https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2011/02/msg00133.html
 https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/04/msg00693.html
 https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/05/msg00012.html
 https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/05/msg00033.html

My personal bias is that I would prefer if the technical committee
does *not* have to decide which package gets the command.  I think
that once the stonewalling is over and people start actually trying to
work on a fix, we might run into technical complications and it would
be useful if the maintainers involved feel free to adapt and discuss
with one another appropriate fixes.

Unfortunately, I think [1] illustrates that the participants are not
willing to discuss reasonably any more.

I'd be happy to talk about work so far, transition plans,
complications and possible ways forward in a separate message.

Thanks,
Jonathan

[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-hams/2012/05/msg00017.html

___
Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list
Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Node.js and it's future in debian

[Jonathan Nieder]

Patrick Ouellette wrote:

>   (The "patch" sent does not address
> automatically updating anything)

This is very funny.  You are putting patch in quotes, but it[1] was a
real patch.  It did not automatically update anything because it was
meant to be a simple patch to get work started.  I volunteered to
write further patches once I got feedback on that one, and then I got
no direct feedback on it, just occasional passive-aggressive comments
like the above.

[...]
>> Because you did not ask for one.  Instead you have been wasting time
>> arguing and defending against an opponent you seem to assume is not
>> going to care or listen to you.
>
> The Node.js people apparently didn't ask for one either
> pot - kettle - black

The pot is presumably me.  But I am not a Node.js person.  The Debian
Node.js package maintainers have been friendly and helpful when I
contacted them, and they seem to be willing to help work on including
a nodejs command upstream and modifying Debian packages to use it.
They also seemed willing to remove the node command from nodejs if a
consensus in the project were to develop that that was needed.

Just for completeness, I should mention that Jaime Robles on the
ham radio package maintenance side has been friendly, too.

You have made it clear that you are more interested in punishing
people than in making wheezy better, so I don't think we have anything
left to talk about.  I'll contact the technical committee and leave
this in their capable hands.

Thanks for some useful clarifications,
Jonathan

[1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?msg=20;bug=614907

___
Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list
Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel

[Pkg-javascript-devel] Request for policy interpretation: procedure and possible outcomes for naming conflicts

[Jonathan Nieder]

Hi policy editors,

In the discussion at [1], Pat wrote to the DPL asking for some
mediation in figuring out what should happen to the "node" command
name.  No one has offered that mediation (the ctte presumably could do
it if asked) but I mentioned that there seems to have been some
uncertainty about matters of procedure[2], mostly revolving around
policy §10.1 and the role of policy in general.

Stefano suggested writing to you to request interpretation of policy.
Sorry to drag you into this.  Thoughts would be welcome, but if you'd
prefer to hold off on interpretation until this particular story is
resolved, that would be a fine answer, too.

The questions (from [2]):

- When policy 10.1 refers to maintainers reporting naming conflicts to
  debian-devel and trying to find consensus about which program is to
  be renamed, is that consensus among the maintainers of the packages
  involved or some other group?  In other words, is stonewalling an
  acceptable and viable strategy?

- Policy says that in the absence of consensus, both packages must be
  renamed.  A number of people have mentioned that that looks like a
  bad outcome from the users' perspective.

  Policy also states that different packages must not install commands
  with different functionality with the same name.

  If a consensus develops around a solution that does not follow
  policy, could it be implemented?  There is something of a precedent
  for this kind of question in the transition plan for the
  gnuit/git-core command name conflict.  This was before my time, but
  if I understand correctly then update-alternatives was used for one
  release to multiplex between the actual commands and a wrapper
  script that used command line arguments to figure out which command
  was meant.  Ugly as sin (and not a good technical example here), but
  it happened because the maintainers of those packages and the
  release team agreed it was the best we could do.

Thanks,
Jonathan

[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-hams/2012/05/msg00011.html
[2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-hams/2012/05/msg00014.html

___
Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list
Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Node.js and it's future in debian

[Jonathan Nieder]

Hi Stefano,

Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 01:02:14PM -0400, Patrick Ouellette wrote:

>> (I added lea...@debian.org to the Cc: because this is something that
>> I think needs addressed at the leadership level)
>
> In that case, please clarify what you expect from me :-), especially
> taking in account the fact that DPL's leadership cannot rule on
> technical matters.

I think there has been some uncertainty about procedure.  For example:

- When policy 10.1 refers to maintainers reporting naming conflicts to
  debian-devel and trying to find consensus about which program is to
  be renamed, is that consensus among the maintainers of the packages
  involved or some other group?  In other words, is stonewalling an
  acceptable and viable strategy?

- Policy says that in the absence of consensus, both packages must be
  renamed.  A number of people have mentioned that that looks like a
  bad outcome from the users' perspective.

  Policy also states that different packages must not install commands
  with different functionality with the same name.

  If a consensus develops around a solution that does not follow
  policy, could it be implemented?  There is something of a precedent
  for this kind of question in the transition plan for the
  gnuit/git-core command name conflict.  This was before my time, but
  if I understand correctly then update-alternatives was used for one
  release to multiplex between the actual commands and a wrapper
  script that used command line arguments to figure out which command
  was meant.  Ugly as sin (and not a good technical example here), but
  it happened because the maintainers of those packages and the
  release team agreed it was the best we could do.

Thanks,
Jonathan

___
Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list
Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Node.js and it's future in debian

[Jonathan Nieder]

Patrick Ouellette wrote:

> Likewise I can argue the number of people with installed ham radio systems
> is a good reason NOT to change the current situation.

You can, yes.  But how does that move things forward at all?

This is not supposed to be a popularity contest.  I mentioned the
large pile of scripts because _every one of them would have to be
changed_ to have a working system.  By contrast, there are two
configuration files mentioned so far that refer to /usr/sbin/node.

[...]
> It is no uncommon to install the equipment where the only interaction with
> the computer is via the radio link.  Yes this creates problems when upgrading
> or replacing components.
[...]
> If someone is not paying attention, they will "upgrade" node to axnode (or 
> whatever) which breaks their system (unknown to them because they were
> distracted during the upgrade).

How is this different from upgrades to all the other packages that can
potentially break?  There is nothing to do for this but test upgrades
and caution users to be more careful about them.  Users in this
situation really should not upgrade until ready.

[...]
> If it were "easy" to get an exception, why has this not already happened?

Because you did not ask for one.  Instead you have been wasting time
arguing and defending against an opponent you seem to assume is not
going to care or listen to you.

Jonathan

___
Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list
Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Node.js and it's future in debian

[Jonathan Nieder]

Patrick Ouellette wrote:

> 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)

Ah, thanks for this reminder.  So an appropriate new name to
transition to would be axnode, right?

[...]
> 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 believe the huge number of scripts out there that use the "node"
command meaning to refer to Node.js are a good reason.  I don't think
this is about giving up --- it is about making Debian work well even
in unusual setups.

> 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.

Is it common to upgrade without ssh or physical access to the machine
being upgraded?  If so, I imagine many other potential upgrade
problems could pose trouble, too.

The natural conclusion I'd take away is that the maintainer scripts
must be robust in changing references to /usr/sbin/node in the inetd
and ax25d configuration to point to /usr/sbin/axnode instead.

I would not take away the conclusion that we should block Node.js from
entering the archive for this.

>> 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.

Where policy does not lead to Debian being better, it is irrelevant
because it is easy to change or get an exception from the release
team or technical committee.  I hope the fix is that simple. :)

Thanks again,
Jonathan

___
Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list
Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Node.js and it's future in debian

[Jonathan Nieder]

David A Aitcheson wrote:

> _ALL_ that use it _EXPECT_ /usr/bin/node to be in place and usable

Funny. :)  You will not be happy with any version of Debian, present
or past, then.

___
Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list
Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Node.js and it's future in debian

[Jonathan Nieder]

Patrick Ouellette wrote:
> On Tue, May 01, 2012 at 04:53:05PM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:

>> 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.

Policy can be changed, especially if the maintainers of both packages
find the fix technically acceptable.  Does the outcome described above
sound sensible to you?

The only reason it makes sense to me is that people using a bare
"node" command with both packages installed would know they are asking
for trouble and have an alternative to get away from it.

Thanks,
Jonathan

___
Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list
Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Node.js and it's future in debian

[Jonathan Nieder]

(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.

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

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.

Jonathan

___
Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list
Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel

[Pkg-javascript-devel] Bug#650343: [PATCH/WIP] build: install nodejs synonym for node command

[Jonathan Nieder]

Gah, even a little talking on debian-devel@ is so tiring. :)  I really
dislike rule by the loudest.

It reminded me to send this patch so it doesn't get forgotten, so I
guess it's not a complete loss.

Patch is against Joyent's "master" branch (0.7.y).  Looks like
upstream dropped --shared-cares and never added --shared-libev or
--shared-libeio, and the build system was revamped so the patch adding
mips support will need tweaking.  So there's a little more work to do
before this is ready for experimental.

-- >8 --
On some machines the "node" command refers to some program that is not
Node.js.

This patch adds a "nodejs" symlink that does exactly the same thing as
/usr/bin/node, for use when one wants to refer unambiguously to the
Node.js interpreter.
---
 Makefile   |1 +
 doc/node.1 |5 -
 doc/nodejs.1   |1 +
 tools/installer.js |4 +++-
 4 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
 create mode 12 doc/nodejs.1

diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
index 94b7eb9e..3288ca59 100644
--- a/Makefile
+++ b/Makefile
@@ -209,6 +209,7 @@ $(TARBALL): node out/doc
git archive --format=tar --prefix=$(TARNAME)/ HEAD | tar xf -
mkdir -p $(TARNAME)/doc
cp doc/node.1 $(TARNAME)/doc/node.1
+   ln -s node.1 $(TARNAME)/doc/nodejs.1
cp -r out/doc/api $(TARNAME)/doc/api
rm -rf $(TARNAME)/deps/v8/test # too big
rm -rf $(TARNAME)/doc/images # too big
diff --git a/doc/node.1 b/doc/node.1
index f17ccdae..f582bed5 100644
--- a/doc/node.1
+++ b/doc/node.1
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
 
 
 .SH "NAME"
-node \- Server-side JavaScript
+node, nodejs \- Server-side JavaScript
 
 .SH SYNOPSIS
 
@@ -32,6 +32,9 @@ node \- Server-side JavaScript
 
 Execute without arguments to start the REPL.
 
+.B nodejs
+is equivalent to
+.BR node .
 
 .SH DESCRIPTION
 
diff --git a/doc/nodejs.1 b/doc/nodejs.1
new file mode 12
index ..93cddbc0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/nodejs.1
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+node.1
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/tools/installer.js b/tools/installer.js
index 96c992ed..369c68a6 100644
--- a/tools/installer.js
+++ b/tools/installer.js
@@ -117,6 +117,8 @@ if (cmd === 'install') {
 
   // Copy binary file
   copy('out/Release/node', 'bin/node');
+  queue.push('ln -sf node ' +
+ path.join(dest_dir, node_prefix, 'bin/nodejs'));
 
   // Install node-waf
   if (variables.node_install_waf) {
@@ -135,7 +137,7 @@ if (cmd === 'install') {
   }
 } else {
   remove([
- 'bin/node', 'bin/npm', 'bin/node-waf',
+ 'bin/node', 'bin/nodejs', 'bin/npm', 'bin/node-waf',
  'include/node/*', 'lib/node_modules', 'lib/node'
   ]);
 }
-- 
1.7.10




___
Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list
Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel

[Pkg-javascript-devel] Bug#650343: nodejs: please provide "nodejs" command as a synonym for node

[Jonathan Nieder]

Jonas Smedegaard wrote:

> Isn't your patch about promoting that alternative name instead of the 
> former?  I see a loss of that (from an upstream POV) as it renders 
> current documentation, books and code slightly confusing (albeit still 
> working fine).  What is the gain (for upstream) in promotion of the 
> alternate name?  Or is that part meant only for Debian consumption?

It could be documented like this:

Some systems unfortunately have a "node" command that does
something else.

Scripts wishing to refer unambiguously to the Node.js interpreter
can use the "nodejs" command instead.  This manual will stick to
"node" for simplicity.

In other words, at least from the upstream POV, the nodejs synonym would
be just a workaround, just like the gmake name for "make" (except that
in this case the synonym would be available on all new installations).

Perhaps my "See also nodejs(1)" was overreaching.  I think Debian
packages should prefer the nodejs name but Debian users should feel
free to use "node" when there's no risk of confusion.



___
Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list
Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel

[Pkg-javascript-devel] Bug#650343: nodejs: please provide "nodejs" command as a synonym for node

[Jonathan Nieder]

Hi again,

Some clarifications.

Jonas Smedegaard wrote:

> Oh, I am confused now:  Didn't you hint yourself that upstream might not 
> like it?
>
> Re-reading I now see that you wrote "...without a patch",

Right, I think it is unlikely that upstream would be happy to see
anyone asking them to work on this.  With a patch I don't think it's a
hard sell, given that it only amounts to adding a new synonym for a
command and would save upstream from having to deal with people
bringing it up again. :)

>   but still I 
> saw no indication from the mailinglist thread you referenced that 
> upstream will accept a patch.

Ryan wrote

| I want Node to have the executable name 'node'. 

The tone, if I understood correctly, was one of "why are you bothering
me about this nonsense?".  I agree with him --- removing the 'node'
command would break compatibility for a large group of users and is a
non-starter.  I don't think that implies he won't like a patch adding
a nodejs synonym.

To be crystal clear: previously I might have mentioned that Debian
policy requires removing the 'node' command to comply with Debian
policy if the project cannot come to a consensus about what is to
happen.  If that's the only way to get the package in wheezy, fine.
But that is not what this bug report is about.

[...]
> I can also easily follow an upstream finding it sensible to call some 
> daemon "node" and not (upstream) wanting to change it

I don't think the ham radio tool node's upstream has weighed in at
all, actually.  Alas, ax25-node is undermaintained in Debian.  It may
be that their upstream won't mind the name change.

Jonathan



___
Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list
Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel

[Pkg-javascript-devel] Bug#650343: nodejs: please provide "nodejs" command as a synonym for node

[Jonathan Nieder]

Jonas Smedegaard wrote:

> IMO this change only makes sense because Policy (and an opposite camp 
> equally stubborn as we are, but IMO by a weaker reasoning) forces us to 
> do so.

If that's the case, then I don't support it.  I really don't want to
be part of a bad technical decision made to appease people, since that
just breeds more bad technical decisions.

I agree that this change doesn't make any sense unless there's a good
chance of it also happening upstream.  Any hints towards making a
patch doing that?

Thanks for your thoughtfulness,
Jonathan



___
Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list
Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel

[Pkg-javascript-devel] Bug#650343: nodejs: please provide "nodejs" command as a synonym for node

[Jonathan Nieder]

Jonas Smedegaard wrote:

> Excellent.
>
> ...but this issue has sprung up again at d-devel@ I suggest we hold our 
> horses with actually releasing the changes until we see what comes of 
> that renewed discussion.

Well, independently of all the making everyone happy stuff, do you
think adding a nodejs synonym would be a good change?  I really do ---
I think even if the ham radio tool didn't exist, using a command named
"node" is a collision waiting to happen.  So I like the idea of giving
users a way to unambiguously refer to the Node.js interpreter.



___
Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list
Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel

[Pkg-javascript-devel] Bug#650343: nodejs: please provide "nodejs" command as a synonym for node

[Jonathan Nieder]

tags 650343 + pending
quit

Jonas Smedegaard wrote:

> How about editing directly yourself?

Ok, pushed.



___
Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list
Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel

[Pkg-javascript-devel] Bug#650343: nodejs: please provide "nodejs" command as a synonym for node

[Jonathan Nieder]

Jonathan Nieder wrote:

> I'm attaching a patch that adds some documentation.

And another patch, to make that documentation easier to find.
From: Jonathan Nieder 
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2012 10:32:56 -0500
Subject: Install README.Debian in the nodejs package.

debian/README.Debian is being installed to the first package listed in
debian/control, nodejs-dev.

Better to install to the nodejs package, where the rest of the
documentation already is.
---
 debian/README.Debian|   41 -
 debian/changelog|1 +
 debian/nodejs.README.Debian |   41 +
 3 files changed, 42 insertions(+), 41 deletions(-)
 delete mode 100644 debian/README.Debian
 create mode 100644 debian/nodejs.README.Debian

diff --git a/debian/README.Debian b/debian/README.Debian
deleted file mode 100644
index 05344f66..
--- a/debian/README.Debian
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,41 +0,0 @@
-nodejs for Debian
-=
-
-packaged modules
-
-
-The global search path for modules is
-/usr/lib/nodejs
-
-Future packages of node modules will use that directory,
-so it should be used wisely.
-
-
-user modules
-
-
-Node looks for modules in ./node_modules directory first;
-please read node#modules documentation carefully for more information.
-
-Node does not look for modules in /usr/local/lib/node_modules,
-where npm put them.
-Please read npm-link(1) of npm package, to understand how to properly
-use npm-installed modules in a project.
-
-Note that require.paths is not supported in future node versions.
-See also nodejs(1) for more information about NODE_PATH.
-
-
-nodejs command
---
-
-The upstream name for the Node.js interpreter command is "node", and
-Debian provides the same (for now) for compatibility.
-
-That is a very generic name and there are other commands that use
-the same name in their upstreams, such as ax25-node from the "node"
-package.
-
-Scripts wishing to refer unambiguously to the Node.js interpreter
-can use the "nodejs" command instead.
-We are pursuing inclusion of this synonym upstream.
diff --git a/debian/changelog b/debian/changelog
index 740f00c7..1aa4a265 100644
--- a/debian/changelog
+++ b/debian/changelog
@@ -11,6 +11,7 @@ nodejs (0.6.14~dfsg1-2) UNRELEASED; urgency=low
   * Add /usr/bin/nodejs as a symlink to node and nodejs.1.gz as a
 symlink to the node(1) manpage. Explanation in README.Debian.
 Closes: #650343.
+  * Include README.Debian in nodejs package instead of nodejs-dev.
 
  -- Jonas Smedegaard   Sat, 28 Apr 2012 14:50:29 +0200
 
diff --git a/debian/nodejs.README.Debian b/debian/nodejs.README.Debian
new file mode 100644
index ..05344f66
--- /dev/null
+++ b/debian/nodejs.README.Debian
@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
+nodejs for Debian
+=
+
+packaged modules
+
+
+The global search path for modules is
+/usr/lib/nodejs
+
+Future packages of node modules will use that directory,
+so it should be used wisely.
+
+
+user modules
+
+
+Node looks for modules in ./node_modules directory first;
+please read node#modules documentation carefully for more information.
+
+Node does not look for modules in /usr/local/lib/node_modules,
+where npm put them.
+Please read npm-link(1) of npm package, to understand how to properly
+use npm-installed modules in a project.
+
+Note that require.paths is not supported in future node versions.
+See also nodejs(1) for more information about NODE_PATH.
+
+
+nodejs command
+--
+
+The upstream name for the Node.js interpreter command is "node", and
+Debian provides the same (for now) for compatibility.
+
+That is a very generic name and there are other commands that use
+the same name in their upstreams, such as ax25-node from the "node"
+package.
+
+Scripts wishing to refer unambiguously to the Node.js interpreter
+can use the "nodejs" command instead.
+We are pursuing inclusion of this synonym upstream.
-- 
1.7.10

___
Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list
Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel

[Pkg-javascript-devel] Bug#650343: nodejs: please provide "nodejs" command as a synonym for node

[Jonathan Nieder]

Jonas Smedegaard wrote:

>You really think that is acceptable for the 
> project?

Surely not: the new command has no manpage. :)

I'm attaching a patch that adds some documentation.
 debian/README.Debian |   16 +++-
 debian/changelog |3 ++-
 debian/nodejs.links  |1 +
 3 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/debian/README.Debian b/debian/README.Debian
index 2ecf4315..05344f66 100644
--- a/debian/README.Debian
+++ b/debian/README.Debian
@@ -23,5 +23,19 @@ Please read npm-link(1) of npm package, to understand how to 
properly
 use npm-installed modules in a project.
 
 Note that require.paths is not supported in future node versions.
-See also node(1) for more information about NODE_PATH.
+See also nodejs(1) for more information about NODE_PATH.
 
+
+nodejs command
+--
+
+The upstream name for the Node.js interpreter command is "node", and
+Debian provides the same (for now) for compatibility.
+
+That is a very generic name and there are other commands that use
+the same name in their upstreams, such as ax25-node from the "node"
+package.
+
+Scripts wishing to refer unambiguously to the Node.js interpreter
+can use the "nodejs" command instead.
+We are pursuing inclusion of this synonym upstream.
diff --git a/debian/changelog b/debian/changelog
index 936cf53e..740f00c7 100644
--- a/debian/changelog
+++ b/debian/changelog
@@ -8,7 +8,8 @@ nodejs (0.6.14~dfsg1-2) UNRELEASED; urgency=low
   excess indendation, and sort by year and then name.
 
   [ Jonathan Nieder ]
-  * Add /usr/bin/nodejs as a symlink to node.
+  * Add /usr/bin/nodejs as a symlink to node and nodejs.1.gz as a
+symlink to the node(1) manpage. Explanation in README.Debian.
 Closes: #650343.
 
  -- Jonas Smedegaard   Sat, 28 Apr 2012 14:50:29 +0200
diff --git a/debian/nodejs.links b/debian/nodejs.links
index ddab6c5e..5e1073bf 100644
--- a/debian/nodejs.links
+++ b/debian/nodejs.links
@@ -1 +1,2 @@
 usr/bin/node usr/bin/nodejs
+usr/share/man/man1/node.1.gz usr/share/man/man1/nodejs.1.gz
-- 
1.7.10

___
Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list
Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel

[Pkg-javascript-devel] Bug#650343: nodejs: please provide "nodejs" command as a synonym for node

[Jonathan Nieder]

Jonathan Nieder wrote:

>   Unfortunately the build system scares me, too, so
> for now all I can offer is a patch against the Debian packaging.

Actually attached this time.
 debian/changelog|6 ++
 debian/nodejs.links |1 +
 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 debian/nodejs.links

diff --git a/debian/changelog b/debian/changelog
index 570efb33..c9090bfd 100644
--- a/debian/changelog
+++ b/debian/changelog
@@ -1,3 +1,9 @@
+nodejs (0.6.14~dfsg1-2) UNRELEASE; urgency=low
+
+  * Add /usr/bin/nodejs as a symlink to node. Closes: #650343.
+
+ -- Jonathan Nieder   Fri, 27 Apr 2012 23:10:39 -0500
+
 nodejs (0.6.14~dfsg1-1) unstable; urgency=low
 
   * debian/patches/2005_expected_failing_tests.patch:
diff --git a/debian/nodejs.links b/debian/nodejs.links
new file mode 100644
index ..ddab6c5e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/debian/nodejs.links
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+usr/bin/node usr/bin/nodejs
___
Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list
Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel

[Pkg-javascript-devel] Bug#650343: nodejs: please provide "nodejs" command as a synonym for node

[Jonathan Nieder]

tags 650343 + patch
quit

Hi Jérémy et al,

Jonathan Nieder wrote:

> On some machines /usr/sbin/node refers to some program that is not the
> node.js interpreter.  Therefore it would be helpful to have a "nodejs"
> command that does exactly the same thing as /usr/bin/node, for people
> to put into their scripts to reliably refer to the node.js interpreter.

The message [1] reminded me that this still wasn't finished.  Oops.
Sorry to be so slow.

After rereading [2], I am a little afraid of bringing this up upstream
without a patch.  Unfortunately the build system scares me, too, so
for now all I can offer is a patch against the Debian packaging.

(Disclaimer: the following has nothing to do with Debian policy.) I
genuinely think the best thing Debian could do in wheezy is:

 - provide Node.js as /usr/bin/node

 - provide LinuxNode as /usr/sbin/node

 - also provide unambiguous names (e.g., nodejs, ax25-node) for these
   commands, and use the unambiguous names in configuration and in
   other packages

I also hope that upstream can understand that we are not trying to
deny reality or to work against them but that it would be nice for
googlability among other reasons to move to less generic names for
these commands and avoid generic command names in the future.

The name /usr/bin/nodejs seems to have some cross-distro support.[3]

Thoughts?  Improvements?

Thanks,
Jonathan

[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/04/msg00693.html
[2] http://groups.google.com/group/nodejs/browse_thread/thread/12a673a14838aa9a/
[3] <https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=815018>:

"* There is a file conflict with the /usr/bin/node shipped by the "node" package
 in Fedora.  I rename everything to "nodejs" to avoid this, and there are
 several patches in my SRPM [3] that make Node happy with this."



___
Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list
Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel

[Pkg-javascript-devel] Bug#611657: executable name is confusing, software already outdated

[Jonathan Nieder]

Jeremy Lal wrote:

> Hence it is much more preferable to remove nodejs 0.2.0 from squeeze, instead
> of having an unusable and confusing version.

This report feels out-of-date.  Is it still needed, or has it been
resolved?



___
Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list
Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Is anyone maintaining (the ham radio tool) node?

[Jonathan Nieder]

Jérémy Lal wrote:

> I can prepare a patch for nodejs package.

Thanks!

[...]
> - I can't help but talk about "npm", an essential development tool distributed
> in latest nodejs (can be compared to ruby's gem). It allows one to install and
> publish npm packages to a common registry.
> It will need a patch to rename shebangs on-the-fly, and maybe rename them back
> when publishing. Npm author is working closely with nodejs authors.

Filed as bug#650345.

[...]
>> Yes, that includes changing policy, if you happen to have
>> a coherent proposal in mind.)
>
> I don't understand, could you explain why / which policy ?

Debian policy.  I was thinking of [1] as I said this.  But I do not
personally have any idea about how policy could be improved in this
area.

Sincerely,
Jonathan

[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2011/11/msg00380.html

___
Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list
Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel

[Pkg-javascript-devel] Bug#650345: npm: please consider rewriting shebangs on the fly to refer to "nodejs" name

[Jonathan Nieder]

Package: npm
Version: 0.2.19-1
Severity: wishlist

Hi,

As mentioned at [1]:

On some machines /usr/sbin/node refers to some program that is not the
node.js interpreter[2].  Therefore it would be helpful to have a facility
to automatically rewrite shebangs that currently refer to
"#!/usr/bin/env node" to refer to "#!/usr/bin/env nodejs" instead, to
help people with /usr/sbin in their $PATH.

This naturally assumes that a /usr/bin/nodejs command is available, so
bug#650343 needs to be resolved first.

Thanks for your work,
Jonathan

[1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.debian.devel.javascript/273
[2] http://bugs.debian.org/611698 has details.



___
Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list
Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel

[Pkg-javascript-devel] Bug#650343: nodejs: please provide "nodejs" command as a synonym for node

[Jonathan Nieder]

Package: nodejs
Version: 0.4.12-1
Severity: wishlist
Tags: upstream

Hi,

On some machines /usr/sbin/node refers to some program that is not the
node.js interpreter.  Therefore it would be helpful to have a "nodejs"
command that does exactly the same thing as /usr/bin/node, for people
to put into their scripts to reliably refer to the node.js interpreter.

In particular, this would allow node.js scripts to be included in
Debian without conflicting with the ham radio tool "node".

I'd be happy to help work on a patch for this to submit upstream.

Thanks for your work,
Jonathan



___
Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list
Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Is anyone maintaining (the ham radio tool) node?

[Jonathan Nieder]

Ian Jackson wrote:

> I think the best way to fix this is to prepare both renaming uploads
> in advance, and allow either of the two contending maintainers to
> upload both packages simultaneously.

Thanks, that sounds sensible to me.

Since this still seems to be stalled, I would like to hear from the
nodejs maintainers whether this approach would be okay with them and
whether there is anything others involved with Debian can do to help
with the migration.

(Yes, that includes helping talk with upstream to get nodejs accepted
as a synonym so scripts with "#!/usr/bin/env nodejs" can work
everywhere.  Yes, that includes changing policy, if you happen to have
a coherent proposal in mind.)

Regards,
Jonathan

___
Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list
Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Is anyone maintaining (the ham radio tool) node?

[Jonathan Nieder]

(+cc: nod...@packages.debian.org.  Sorry for the noise.)
Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Patrick Ouellette wrote:

>> You claim to not use either package, but yet you advocate for the node.js
>> package to keep the executable name "node" - this is strange to me.
>
> Sorry, I must have been unclear.

A few more words of clarification:

It might seems strange that someone using neither package cares about
these bugs.  So here is why I care:

 1. I use Debian.  I do not want it to be broken (one aspect of "broken"
is the same command having different effects depending on which
package is installed).  My experience is that for better or worse, if
the project can't fix a bug like this one, new maintainers of other
packages in similar situations will take it as an example and
introduce even more breakage.

 2. Ham radio projects seem neat to me.  Lots of nice people,
including John Goerzen, are ham radio operators.  It would be nice
to make sure Debian continues to make their lives pleasant and
makes my life pleasant if I ever acquire the appropriate hardware.

 3. node.js seems neat to me.  Lots of nice people including Jonas
Smedegaard use it to program.  I imagine that at some point in the
future, even if I never start to use the language myself, I might
find myself running programs using it (like has happened to me
with ruby already).

I hope you care some small amount about packages you don't currently use,
too. :)

___
Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list
Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Is anyone maintaining (the ham radio tool) node?

[Jonathan Nieder]

Hi Pat,

Patrick Ouellette wrote:

> The binary on the ham radio side is not "LinuxNode" in package "node" it is
> simply "node" in package "node"
>
> Since you are still concerned with this issue, and neither side has shown a
> willingness to change, I would say the time has come for both packages to be 
> renamed.

Just to be clear: both package names are fine --- it's the names of
the binaries that cause trouble.

Being a user of neither package, I'd actually prefer for the name of
the javascript interpreter to stay "node" (sorry!).  It is the
difference between needing to change the configuration of one
superserver and needing to change the shebang line and content of many
scripts.  However, if the only way to include both node and nodejs in
wheezy is for the interpreter binary to be renamed, too, that's ok
with me.  There's currently a release-critical bug against nodejs
about that.

Should the binary on the ham radio side be called ax25-node, or
LinuxNode, or something like that?  Given a proposed name, I would be
happy enough to assume I have your blessing and start sending patches
to the node bug. :)

> Pat (one of the unresponsive ham radio maintainers)

Glad to hear from you, and thanks for your hard work keeping the
amateur radio stack working.

___
Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list
Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel