[Pkg-javascript-devel] Bug#754462: Bug#862051: nodejs (6.11.2~dfsg-1) experimental; urgency=medium

[Tollef Fog Heen]

]] Didier 'OdyX' Raboud 

> There are _plenty_ of changes that one needs to care about in a stable 
> upgrade: things like mandatory postfixing of Apache configuration files, 
> removal 
> of specific Python3 versions, removal of upstart, etc. Having to change a 
> shebang isn't a big deal given the amount of things one has to check accross 
> a 
> stable release upgrade.

You might quite reasonably write scripts in node and either store them
in a shared directory across multiple Debian versions or have ~/bin in
version control shared across multiple Debian installations (and
corresponding versions).

#! lines are a bit special in this regard.

-- 
Tollef Fog Heen
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are

-- 
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#754462: Bug#862051: nodejs (6.11.2~dfsg-1) experimental; urgency=medium

[Ian Jackson]

Jérémy Lal writes ("Re: Bug#754462: Bug#862051: nodejs (6.11.2~dfsg-1) 
experimental; urgency=medium"):
> So, a short NEWS entry explaining /usr/bin/node is now available by default,
> and that /usr/bin/nodejs will stay available indefinitely ?
> Or even nothing and just a changelog entry ?

I would go for the latter, personally.

My philosophy is that a NEWS entry is something you use when people
have to change something.  The best packages do not need NEWS entries
because they simply keep working.  Starting to provide /usr/bin/node
and keeping /usr/bin/nodejs means that no-one has to change anything,
which is perfect - and therefore we don't need to bother users.

It's true that NEWS might be used when a new opportunity arises that
means many users might want to change something, even though they
don't have to.  I would reserve that for situations where the user's
existing setup is (likely to be) hazardous or seriously suboptimal,
especially in a non-obvious way.

Existing scripts that use /usr/bin/nodejs are not as portable to other
OSes as they could be, but of course the script's author will probably
be aware of that already.  It doesn't seem to me to be the kind of
opportunity for remedying a significant defect that would warrant a
NEWS entry.

However:

One thing you I would consider is that it would be nice if scripts in
Debian packages were made more portable to other distros.  So Debian
packages should gradually change to use /usr/bin/node.  I am very
conservative about these things because I like to keep backporting
(within Debian) as easy as possible.  So if I were the maintainer of a
node.js package which had scripts mentioning /usr/bin/nodejs, I would
probably make that change in buster+1 rather than in buster.

In buster+1 you should probably consider asking for a lintian warning
about references to /usr/bin/nodejs.  Not because you intend to drop
/usr/bin/nodejs ever (why do that - see previous emails) but because
it would be better, as I've just discussed, for Debian packages to
contain fewer hurdles to adoption elsewhere.

Regards,
Ian.

-- 
Ian Jackson    These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.

-- 
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#754462: Bug#862051: nodejs (6.11.2~dfsg-1) experimental; urgency=medium

[Dominique Dumont]

On Thursday, 31 August 2017 13:08:58 CEST Sam Hartman wrote:
> There are cases where people mix stderr and stdout.  There are cases
> where people treat any unexpected output on stderr as a failure in
> automated scripts.

I rest my case. Thanks for the explanation. :-)

All the best

-- 
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#754462: Bug#862051: nodejs (6.11.2~dfsg-1) experimental; urgency=medium

[Jérémy Lal]

2017-08-31 19:08 GMT+02:00 Sam Hartman :

> > "Dominique" == Dominique Dumont  writes:
>
> Dominique> On Thursday, 31 August 2017 13:58:23 CEST Thorsten Glaser
> wrote:
> >> > How about printing a "nice" warning explaining it would be a
> >> good idea to > move to /usr/bin/node ?
> >>
> >> That will break scripts that do:
> >>
> >> x=$(nodejs somescript)
>
> Dominique> This kind of script won't break if the deprecation
> Dominique> warning is sent to STDERR
>
>
> Sigh.
> I wish I had seen your message before your earlier reply.
> This breaks too in more complex situations involving ssh, things like
> expect scripts and the like.
> There are cases where people mix stderr and stdout.  There are cases
> where people treat any unexpected output on stderr as a failure in
> automated scripts.
>
> The next level you can look at is considering whether /dev/stdin in a
> tty and printing the warning to either stderr or /dev/tty only in that
> case.
> And that will reduce the breakage but not remove it.
> And yes, when you actually have something it's important to deprecate,
> accepting some level of breakage and adopting one of those strategies is
> the right thing.
>
> It's just not worth it in this case.
> People who use more than Debian are very quickly going to learn that
> /usr/bin/node is preferred to /usr/bin/nodejs.
> As several people have already pointed out we've far exceeded the amount
> of effort in considering whether to deprecate or remove the link that
> will be spent maintaining the link until the end of time.
> In one sense we've already lost:-)
>

So, a short NEWS entry explaining /usr/bin/node is now available by default,
and that /usr/bin/nodejs will stay available indefinitely ?
Or even nothing and just a changelog entry ?

Jérémy
-- 
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#754462: Bug#862051: nodejs (6.11.2~dfsg-1) experimental; urgency=medium

[Sam Hartman]

> "Dominique" == Dominique Dumont  writes:

Dominique> On Thursday, 31 August 2017 13:58:23 CEST Thorsten Glaser wrote:
>> > How about printing a "nice" warning explaining it would be a
>> good idea to > move to /usr/bin/node ?
>> 
>> That will break scripts that do:
>> 
>> x=$(nodejs somescript)

Dominique> This kind of script won't break if the deprecation
Dominique> warning is sent to STDERR


Sigh.
I wish I had seen your message before your earlier reply.
This breaks too in more complex situations involving ssh, things like
expect scripts and the like.
There are cases where people mix stderr and stdout.  There are cases
where people treat any unexpected output on stderr as a failure in
automated scripts.

The next level you can look at is considering whether /dev/stdin in a
tty and printing the warning to either stderr or /dev/tty only in that
case.
And that will reduce the breakage but not remove it.
And yes, when you actually have something it's important to deprecate,
accepting some level of breakage and adopting one of those strategies is
the right thing.

It's just not worth it in this case.
People who use more than Debian are very quickly going to learn that
/usr/bin/node is preferred to /usr/bin/nodejs.
As several people have already pointed out we've far exceeded the amount
of effort in considering whether to deprecate or remove the link that
will be spent maintaining the link until the end of time.
In one sense we've already lost:-)

-- 
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#754462: Bug#862051: nodejs (6.11.2~dfsg-1) experimental; urgency=medium

[Dominique Dumont]

On Thursday, 31 August 2017 13:58:23 CEST Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> > How about printing a "nice" warning explaining it would be a good idea to
> > move to /usr/bin/node ?
>
> That will break scripts that do:
> 
> x=$(nodejs somescript)

This kind of script won't break if the deprecation warning is sent to STDERR

All the best

-- 
 https://github.com/dod38fr/   -o- http://search.cpan.org/~ddumont/
http://ddumont.wordpress.com/  -o-   irc: dod at irc.debian.org

-- 
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#754462: Bug#862051: nodejs (6.11.2~dfsg-1) experimental; urgency=medium

[Didier 'OdyX' Raboud]

Le jeudi, 31 août 2017, 12.25:50 h CEST Ian Jackson a écrit :
> Philip Hands writes ("Bug#862051: nodejs (6.11.2~dfsg-1) experimental; 
urgency=medium"):
> > I guess that one could do something like moving the symlink into another
> > -legacy style package, and recomend that from the main package for one
> > release to keep upgrades happy. Then drop the recomendation, and wait
> > for popcon to show that people are not installing the package any more.
> > Then remove the package in testing early in a cycle and see if anyone
> > reports bugs about it.
> 
> Even that would be quite unfriendly, because third party scripts might
> easily be deployed onto new Debian installs as well as existing ones.
> 
> Also, it is imposing an administrative burden on all Debian users (the
> metadata for the -legacy package, spurious search hits, etc.).  That
> burden might be small but would be completely unjustified.

This exact argument stands against not allowing NodeJS to use /usr/bin/node in 
the first place, really. We accepted to enforce that change for the /usr/bin/ 
namespace "first-come-first-served" reason. We imposed a quite heavy 
administrative burden of either targetting /u/b/nodejs additionally or (finding 
out and) installing nodejs-legacy for anyone wanting to use NodeJS on Debian.

Now, there are two categories of scripts affected by this discussion:
* All scripts which support /u/b/nodejs *in addition* to /u/b/node. These do 
so _because_ of a Debian-specific change, and removing the /u/b/nodejs symlink 
is not going to break those.
* All scripts which support /u/b/nodejs *exclusively*. These do so _because_ 
of a Debian-specific change, and don't support *any* non-Debian-derivative 
target (checked Fedora's nodejs RPMs: no /u/b/nodejs). Maintainers of those 
scripts have at one point decided to support only Debian{, and derivatives}.

There are _plenty_ of changes that one needs to care about in a stable 
upgrade: things like mandatory postfixing of Apache configuration files, 
removal 
of specific Python3 versions, removal of upstart, etc. Having to change a 
shebang isn't a big deal given the amount of things one has to check accross a 
stable release upgrade.

All that to say that despite the very small cost of keeping the symlink 
around, I do see value in closing the Debian-specific /u/b/nodejs chapter *at 
some point*. We should not clutter our future releases indefinitely with 
convenience symlinks for historical reasons, especially not when these were 
created _by_ Debian and have only been _in_ Debian.

Le jeudi, 31 août 2017, 13.52:00 h CEST Jérémy Lal a écrit :
> How about printing a "nice" warning explaining it would be a good idea to
> move to /usr/bin/node ? Then in next next release drop the nodejs symlink.

This seems like a very good plan to me: let /u/b/nodejs spit out a deprecation 
warning to stderr / syslog but pass all arguments to /u/b/node in Buster; 
remove it entirely in Bullseye & get proper release note entries for both 
Buster and Bullseye.

Cheers.
OdyX

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
-- 
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#754462: Bug#862051: nodejs (6.11.2~dfsg-1) experimental; urgency=medium

[Didier 'OdyX' Raboud]

Le jeudi, 31 août 2017, 13.58:23 h CEST Thorsten Glaser a écrit :
> Do not drop it before *after* the next release, so people have,
> at the very least, one full release of time to switch their
> scripts in a way that works with both the old and new names
> *first*, gradually.

They have Stretch for that; it has both /usr/bin/nodejs and /usr/bin/node (in 
nodejs-legacy).

Cheers,
OdyX

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
-- 
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#754462: Bug#862051: nodejs (6.11.2~dfsg-1) experimental; urgency=medium

[Thorsten Glaser]

On Thu, 31 Aug 2017, Jérémy Lal wrote:

> How about printing a "nice" warning explaining it would be a good idea to
> move to /usr/bin/node ?

That will break scripts that do:

x=$(nodejs somescript)

Or even ./somescript when that has a #!/usr/bin/env nodejs shebang.

> Then in next next release drop the nodejs symlink.

Again, “no, period”.

Do not drop it before *after* the next release, so people have,
at the very least, one full release of time to switch their
scripts in a way that works with both the old and new names
*first*, gradually.

bye,
//mirabilos
-- 
tarent solutions GmbH
Rochusstraße 2-4, D-53123 Bonn • http://www.tarent.de/
Tel: +49 228 54881-393 • Fax: +49 228 54881-235
HRB 5168 (AG Bonn) • USt-ID (VAT): DE122264941
Geschäftsführer: Dr. Stefan Barth, Kai Ebenrett, Boris Esser, Alexander Steeg

*

**Besuchen Sie uns auf der dmexco!**
13. und 14. September 2017, Messe Köln,** Halle 7.1, Stand E042**
Digital Marketing Exposition & Conference
[www.tarent.de/dmexco](http://www.tarent.de/dmexco)

Wir empfehlen unseren Vortrag
"Wettbewerbsanalyse im Handel: Preisvergleich online und offline"
am 13. September, 18:00 Uhr im Speaker's Forum / Broadway

*

**Visit us at dmexco!**
September 13th and 14th, 2017, Messe Köln,** Hall 7.1, Booth E042**
Digital Marketing Exposition & Conference
[www.tarent.de/dmexco](http://www.tarent.de/dmexco)

We recommend our presentation
"Competitor analysis in retail: price comparison online and offline"
on September 13th, at 6 pm at the Speaker's Corner / Broadway

*

-- 
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#754462: Bug#862051: nodejs (6.11.2~dfsg-1) experimental; urgency=medium

[Jérémy Lal]

2017-08-31 13:25 GMT+02:00 Ian Jackson :

> Philip Hands writes ("Bug#862051: nodejs (6.11.2~dfsg-1) experimental;
> urgency=medium"):
> > I guess that one could do something like moving the symlink into another
> > -legasy style package, and recomend that from the main package for one
> > release to keep upgrades happy. Then drop the recomendation, and wait
> > for popcon to show that people are not installing the package any more.
> > Then remove the package in testing early in a cycle and see if anyone
> > reports bugs about it.
>
> Even that would be quite unfriendly, because third party scripts might
> easily be deployed onto new Debian installs as well as existing ones.
>
> Also, it is imposing an administrative burden on all Debian users (the
> metadata for the -legacy package, spurious search hits, etc.).  That
> burden might be small but would be completely unjustified.
>

How about printing a "nice" warning explaining it would be a good idea to
move to /usr/bin/node ? Then in next next release drop the nodejs symlink.

Jérémy
-- 
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#754462: Bug#862051: nodejs (6.11.2~dfsg-1) experimental; urgency=medium

[Ian Jackson]

Philip Hands writes ("Bug#862051: nodejs (6.11.2~dfsg-1) experimental; 
urgency=medium"):
> I guess that one could do something like moving the symlink into another
> -legasy style package, and recomend that from the main package for one
> release to keep upgrades happy. Then drop the recomendation, and wait
> for popcon to show that people are not installing the package any more.
> Then remove the package in testing early in a cycle and see if anyone
> reports bugs about it.

Even that would be quite unfriendly, because third party scripts might
easily be deployed onto new Debian installs as well as existing ones.

Also, it is imposing an administrative burden on all Debian users (the
metadata for the -legacy package, spurious search hits, etc.).  That
burden might be small but would be completely unjustified.

Ian.

-- 
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#754462: Bug#862051: nodejs (6.11.2~dfsg-1) experimental; urgency=medium

[Ian Jackson]

Jérémy Lal writes ("Bug#862051: nodejs (6.11.2~dfsg-1) experimental; 
urgency=medium"):
> Maybe i didn't express myself properly: the idea is to keep /usr/bin/nodejs
> until it's no longer needed - be it other debian packages or other user
> scripts.

Earlier you said only "other Debian packages":

   My plan was to simply keep /usr/bin/nodejs around for some time
   until no debian package rely on it.

Now you say "other user scripts".  I don't know how you would ever
tell whether "other user scripts" were relying on it.  There is no way
to for us to tell what people are doing on their computers (and nor
should there be).

> If it was to be really removed, it shouldn't be done without some
> deprecation warning and time for users to notice and change their
> code.

Why would you bother with a deprecation warning, and forcing a lot of
users to change their code ?  Why not just leave the symlink
permanently ?

Ian.

-- 
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#754462: Bug#862051: nodejs (6.11.2~dfsg-1) experimental; urgency=medium

[Philip Hands]

Jérémy Lal  writes:

> 2017-08-30 11:50 GMT+02:00 Philip Hands :
>
>> Jérémy Lal  writes:
>>
>> > 2017-08-29 21:39 GMT+02:00 Didier 'OdyX' Raboud :
>> >
>> >> Le mardi, 29 août 2017, 17.46:22 h CEST Thorsten Glaser a écrit :
>> >> > Leave /usr/bin/nodejs there for at least one more release.
>> >>
>> >> I'll just note for the purpose of the TC discussion that as of nodejs
>> >> 6.11.2~dfsg-3 (the version currently in unstable) , the /usr/bin/nodejs
>> →
>> >> node
>> >> symlink still exists, so at this point, I don't consider there is
>> material
>> >> for
>> >> a TC decision either way, but it's an important conversation to be had.
>> >>
>> >> Jérémy: could you maybe clarify your plan and your rationale? This would
>> >> help
>> >> putting everyone on common grounds.
>> >>
>> >
>> > I replaced /usr/bin/nodejs by /usr/bin/node, and made a symlink from
>> > /usr/bin/nodejs to /usr/bin/node.
>> > My plan was to simply keep /usr/bin/nodejs around for some time until
>> > no debian package rely on it. The JavaScript debian team wiki is updated
>> > to reflect that.
>>
>> I was against the TC instructing you how to behave in detail in our
>> resolution, because I couldn't imagine that anyone would think that
>> tidiness was more important than not breaking things for our users.
>>
>> Are you really going to prove me wrong?
>>
>> How much is it costing you to keep the symlink there?
>>
>> Do you expect that cost to ever exceed the effort of responding to even
>> the first bug reported about this, when you turn out to have broken
>> someone's locally-written script?
>>
>> Actually, do you expect it to ever exceed the effort already wasted in
>> responding to this thread by you and us?
>>
>> It's pretty clear that if you do decide to go ahead and remove
>> /usr/bin/nodejs quickly, that someone is likely to kick the matter back
>> up to the TC.
>>
>> I for one will have absolutely no sympathy with your side of the case at
>> that point, not only because I think it is senseless, but also because
>> you'll have been responsible for wasting the time of all involved.
>>
>> I will also not be even slightly timid about micro-managing you the
>> second time around, since if that comes to pass you'll have demonstrated
>> the need.
>
>
> Maybe i didn't express myself properly: the idea is to keep /usr/bin/nodejs
> until it's no longer needed - be it other debian packages or other user
> scripts.
> If it was to be really removed, it shouldn't be done without some
> deprecation
> warning and time for users to notice and change their code.

Ah, well -- that's all fine then.  Thanks for clarifying.

Cheers, Phil.
-- 
|)|  Philip Hands  [+44 (0)20 8530 9560]  HANDS.COM Ltd.
|-|  http://www.hands.com/http://ftp.uk.debian.org/
|(|  Hugo-Klemm-Strasse 34,   21075 Hamburg,GERMANY


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- 
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#754462: Bug#862051: nodejs (6.11.2~dfsg-1) experimental; urgency=medium

[Philip Hands]

Jérémy Lal  writes:

> 2017-08-29 21:39 GMT+02:00 Didier 'OdyX' Raboud :
>
>> Le mardi, 29 août 2017, 17.46:22 h CEST Thorsten Glaser a écrit :
>> > Leave /usr/bin/nodejs there for at least one more release.
>>
>> I'll just note for the purpose of the TC discussion that as of nodejs
>> 6.11.2~dfsg-3 (the version currently in unstable) , the /usr/bin/nodejs →
>> node
>> symlink still exists, so at this point, I don't consider there is material
>> for
>> a TC decision either way, but it's an important conversation to be had.
>>
>> Jérémy: could you maybe clarify your plan and your rationale? This would
>> help
>> putting everyone on common grounds.
>>
>
> I replaced /usr/bin/nodejs by /usr/bin/node, and made a symlink from
> /usr/bin/nodejs to /usr/bin/node.
> My plan was to simply keep /usr/bin/nodejs around for some time until
> no debian package rely on it. The JavaScript debian team wiki is updated
> to reflect that.

I was against the TC instructing you how to behave in detail in our
resolution, because I couldn't imagine that anyone would think that
tidiness was more important than not breaking things for our users.

Are you really going to prove me wrong?

How much is it costing you to keep the symlink there?

Do you expect that cost to ever exceed the effort of responding to even
the first bug reported about this, when you turn out to have broken
someone's locally-written script?

Actually, do you expect it to ever exceed the effort already wasted in
responding to this thread by you and us?

It's pretty clear that if you do decide to go ahead and remove
/usr/bin/nodejs quickly, that someone is likely to kick the matter back
up to the TC.

I for one will have absolutely no sympathy with your side of the case at
that point, not only because I think it is senseless, but also because
you'll have been responsible for wasting the time of all involved.

I will also not be even slightly timid about micro-managing you the
second time around, since if that comes to pass you'll have demonstrated
the need.

Be warned.

Cheers, Phil.
-- 
|)|  Philip Hands  [+44 (0)20 8530 9560]  HANDS.COM Ltd.
|-|  http://www.hands.com/http://ftp.uk.debian.org/
|(|  Hugo-Klemm-Strasse 34,   21075 Hamburg,GERMANY


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- 
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#754462: Bug#862051: nodejs (6.11.2~dfsg-1) experimental; urgency=medium

[Didier 'OdyX' Raboud]

Le mardi, 29 août 2017, 17.46:22 h CEST Thorsten Glaser a écrit :
> Leave /usr/bin/nodejs there for at least one more release.

I'll just note for the purpose of the TC discussion that as of nodejs 
6.11.2~dfsg-3 (the version currently in unstable) , the /usr/bin/nodejs → node 
symlink still exists, so at this point, I don't consider there is material for 
a TC decision either way, but it's an important conversation to be had.

Jérémy: could you maybe clarify your plan and your rationale? This would help 
putting everyone on common grounds.

Cheers,
OdyX

-- 
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#754462: Bug#862051: nodejs (6.11.2~dfsg-1) experimental; urgency=medium

[Thorsten Glaser]

On Tue, 29 Aug 2017, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:

> I'm quite convinced that large parts of the Node.js ecosystem will cope well 
> without any /usr/bin/nodejs available in stretch.
> 
> So I'm not convinced it's really worth the trouble to keep it around for 
> another stable release; I'd probably be fine with a swap of the setup we had 

We might have users who might have scripts invoking nodejs,
users who wish for these scripts to not break just from
upgrading from one release to the other with no way to
make things work on both releases for the interim/migration
period.

So, please keep it.

bye,
//mirabilos
-- 
tarent solutions GmbH
Rochusstraße 2-4, D-53123 Bonn • http://www.tarent.de/
Tel: +49 228 54881-393 • Fax: +49 228 54881-235
HRB 5168 (AG Bonn) • USt-ID (VAT): DE122264941
Geschäftsführer: Dr. Stefan Barth, Kai Ebenrett, Boris Esser, Alexander Steeg

*

**Besuchen Sie uns auf der dmexco!**
13. und 14. September 2017, Messe Köln,** Halle 7.1, Stand E042**
Digital Marketing Exposition & Conference
[www.tarent.de/dmexco](http://www.tarent.de/dmexco)

Wir empfehlen unseren Vortrag
"Wettbewerbsanalyse im Handel: Preisvergleich online und offline"
am 13. September, 18:00 Uhr im Speaker's Forum / Broadway

*

**Visit us at dmexco!**
September 13th and 14th, 2017, Messe Köln,** Hall 7.1, Booth E042**
Digital Marketing Exposition & Conference
[www.tarent.de/dmexco](http://www.tarent.de/dmexco)

We recommend our presentation
"Competitor analysis in retail: price comparison online and offline"
on September 13th, at 6 pm at the Speaker's Corner / Broadway

*

-- 
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#754462: Bug#862051: nodejs (6.11.2~dfsg-1) experimental; urgency=medium

[Sam Hartman]

> "Didier" == Didier 'OdyX' Raboud  writes:


Didier> For good reasons, Debian forcibly introduced a special-case
Didier> when Node.js first appeared in a stable release through only
Didier> shipping it under /usr/bin/nodejs.  That forced hundreds of
Didier> projects to cope with that, probably often through
Didier> supporting both /usr/bin/node and /usr/bin/nodejs I suspect.

Right.
I think we introduced the special case for good reason, so I think we
should have a good reason to remove it.
When we introduce an interface, we should only break it with cause.
I don't personally think the esthetic cleanlyness of removing one
symlink from the filesystem and the infrastructure from the source
package to create it is worth the cost of breaking people who have come
to depend on the interface we created.

There is a significant difference between this and cleaning up
maintainer scripts.
Here we created the interface not just within our own packaging, but
also for our users to use.

-- 
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#754462: Bug#862051: nodejs (6.11.2~dfsg-1) experimental; urgency=medium

[Didier 'OdyX' Raboud]

Le mardi, 29 août 2017, 12.32:19 h CEST Sam Hartman a écrit :
> > "Thorsten" == Thorsten Glaser  writes:
> Thorsten> Hi,
> 
> >> * Restore /usr/bin/node following CTTE #862051 Let's try to drop
> >> /usr/bin/nodejs before buster.  Replaces and Conflicts
> >> nodejs-legacy.  Closes: #754462.
> 
> Thorsten> please do NOT completely replace an ABI between releases.
> Thorsten> Leave /usr/bin/nodejs there for at least one more release.
> 
> 
> I agree.
> Even if you get everything in Debian fixed, you won't know about user
> scripts that have been designed around what Debian does.

Right.

Searching for "/usr/bin/nodejs" on github [0] shows around 27'500 occurences.

> Giving people a release to deal with transitions is a great thing to do
> when there's no good reason not to.
> Maintaining a symlink for a release seems a low cost.

True. On the other hand, the fact that Debian "created" /usr/bin/nodejs also 
means it's on Debian's hands to eventually remove it.

For good reasons, Debian forcibly introduced a special-case when Node.js first 
appeared in a stable release through only shipping it under /usr/bin/nodejs. 
That forced hundreds of projects to cope with that, probably often through 
supporting both /usr/bin/node and /usr/bin/nodejs I suspect.

I'm quite convinced that large parts of the Node.js ecosystem will cope well 
without any /usr/bin/nodejs available in stretch.

So I'm not convinced it's really worth the trouble to keep it around for 
another stable release; I'd probably be fine with a swap of the setup we had 
(with the convenience symlink in a different and not-installed-by-default 
package).

> For that matter I really can't see a good reason to ever drop the
> symlink.

I want Debian to be able to move on and ahead; cleaning up past special-cases 
from our stable releases is good. We only support stable-to-stable upgrades 
for good reasons and removing such convenience symlinks falls in the same 
category as cleanup of maintainer scripts' code for oldstable-to-stable paths. 
I would strongly support removal of the symlink in bullseye.

Cheers,
OdyX

[0] https://github.com/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93=%22%2Fusr%2Fbin%2Fnodejs
%22=Code

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