Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Node.js and it's future in debian
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 want to do, but when upstream is not doing their due diligence... As a lapsed HAM who's not transmitted anything for about 20 years, and someone vaguely aware of node.js, I feel relatively unbiased about this. 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 ax25-node package, which contains what node does now, with the binary renamed nodejs package replaced by a node.js-legacy (or a better name if there is one) package that contains no more than a README and a symlink node -- node.js (or whatever), and depends on node.js node.js package that is the nodejs package with a renamed binary. and make node-legacy and node.js-legacy conflict. The problems with this would seem to be the potential pain of renaming packages, and the fact that using conflicts like that is a policy violation -- could we perhaps make an exception for a case like this on the basis that the package descriptions could spell out why the conflict is there. The result would be that either camp can install the -legacy package and carry on unaffected, and anyone that needs both simply avoids the -legacy packages, and fixes any hard-coded paths on their system, which they'll know to do because they'll be a (probably more cluefull than average) combined HAM and Node.js user who's been pointed at the READMEs by the conflict and the package descriptions. The -legacy naming will apply a gentle pressure to just use the real packages, which will leave the door open to upstreams to see the light and change their default name, but not so much pressure that they'll get upset about it. The READMEs of all the packages could refer to why this was done, and how to get what you want depending one which of the various permutations of behaviours you want. So this would need package replacement, which is a pain, and an exception for a policy violation -- is that enough to kill the idea? Cheers, Phil. -- |)| Philip Hands [+44 (0)20 8530 9560]http://www.hands.com/ |-| HANDS.COM Ltd.http://www.uk.debian.org/ |(| 10 Onslow Gardens, South Woodford, London E18 1NE ENGLAND pgpl7vKwFiPBK.pgp 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
Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Node.js and it's future in debian
On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 02:31:29PM +0200, DL1SIG wrote: I think using the alternatives system [1] could be a solution. I guess that node.js and axnode is not often used on the same system. Therefore in most of the cases the alternatives auto select mechanism will do the right thing. While the alternatives system could be used in this manner, we are back to a policy type issue. From the wiki: The Debian alternatives system creates a way for several programs that fullfill the same or similar functions to be listed as alternative implementations that are installed simultaneously but with one particular implementation designated as the default. The packages in question are worlds apart in what they do. They are not alternatives or substitutes. Pat ___ 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
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, Fedora, MacPorts and brew would likely be enough) to rename the node.js binary, upstream will be forced to change from /usr/bin/node to /usr/bin/nodejs Compare this with ruby, where the outcome of Debian diverging from upstream was that the large and vocal upstream community shouted from the rooftops that our packages were broken and should never be used, until eventually (AIUI) Debian backed down. Engaging in brinksmanship with the upstream on such matters is not always going to give a favorable outcome, even if we have other distribution maintainers on our side; and in the meantime it's always unpleasant for the users caught in the middle. 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 want to do, but when upstream is not doing their due diligence... -- Pau Garcia i Quiles http://www.elpauer.org (Due to my workload, I may need 10 days to answer) ___ 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
Hello Gentlemen, I thought I'd chime in since the linux-hams@vger list was added to the thread and give one Packet HAM's perspective. Specifically, if one proposal is to rename the long existing /usr/sbin/node binary to /usr/sbin/axnode, why couldn't the new guy node.js binary be renamed to something like /usr/sbin/nodejs? The later seems more of a reasonable proposal. From my experience, many MANY Linux hams have customized scripts that startup some very elaborate HAM systems. For many, these scripts weren't written by them and the changing of the node command could be very difficult for some. The other aspect is if this change came into a package update that could impact production systems in VERY remote sites. This could cause all kinds ugliness that can be easily avoided. I can appreciate Debian's goal to keep things moving forward but I'd argue that a binary name of /usr/sbin/nodejs would be a lot more informative with the two additional characters than just calling it node (and disrupting a well known binary name for us Linux packet hams). --David KI6ZHD On 05/02/2012 01:04 PM, Patrick Ouellette wrote: On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 12:13:49PM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote: 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? I never said it did. Clearly both sides have valid reasons to not change. Equally clear to me is one side ignored policy and created an issue to attempt to force a resolution they hope will be in their favor rather than solve the issue first. 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. The scripts (on either side) could be changed with a scripted change. If it is so simple to change the configuration files for the ham radio users, why has not a Node.js person put forth code to do this and advocated it on debian-hams and linux-hams? (The patch sent does not address automatically updating anything) I've discussed it with other ham radio operators. They shudder at the thought of changing the name because of the possible issues that will come up. [...] 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. The Node.js people apparently didn't ask for one either pot - kettle - black As for the last line, if I thought the opponent did not care or was not going to listen I would not waste the time putting forth my position. Since it would seem that is where we are, I won't continue to waste my time. Here is my proposal: Node.js people, put forth a reasonable and workable plan to allow hundreds or thousands of ham radio users to transition from /usr/sbin/node to /usr/sbin/axnode, including reliable shell scripts to verify all the files on the system are identified and allowed to be patched or manually modified. You created the situation, you provide the manpower to resolve it in the way you prefer. Pat - NE4PO -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-hams in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.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
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] Node.js and it's future in debian
On 03/05/12 19:51, Jonathan Nieder wrote: . 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.) Exactly. It's a stupidly common term, probably only slightly better than calling it program. I don't buy into this idea that changing it will break all sorts of legacy scripts. If they are that fragile and undocumented, *get rid of them*! Undocumented fragile code is a liability. Kill it now, under known circumstances, and fix it up properly. -- Gordonjcp MM0YEQ ___ 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
Me again.. AX.25 in Linux has been around for a long time so I can excuse it's overly generic node name purely based upon it's age but.. The working title of Node.js was server for a few weeks, before anyone was using it. Wow.. that's horrible! Obviously we don't want stuff like that to happen. Please also consider that all this ISN'T just a *Debian* problem. Its a Linux distro-wide problem. It's groups like this that form and guide aspects of all Linux distributions consistency and considering Debian's wide influence, changes here will surely trickle into other distributions over time. It's also worth touching on that I personally appreciate the work that Patrick Ouellette has done on maintaining the HAM packages for Debian. Like always, there are never enough appreciative people in this world but once removed / renamed /etc, I'm SURE a lot of people will come out of the woodwork to bitch about it. A *lot* of people use Debian and Debian-related distributions with Packet radio. 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.) I personally think that some of it SHOULD be a first come, first served thing. I previously mentioned in the previous email that all of the various scripts that people run could/would break. Probably no big deal to many of us on *this* list but trust me, I know a few Linux packet people who would be seriously lost because of these changes. Also consider the tons of documentation, notably the AX.25 HOWTO that would be impacted and I highly doubt it would get updated (hasn't been since 2001) to reflect these changes. It's not like things have needed to change all that much - http://tldp.org/HOWTO/AX25-HOWTO/ 2. What should be the state in Debian's upcoming wheezy release to provide a smooth upgrade path and not surprise users too much? Is Node.js a new addition to Debian? Again, I side with first come first served. 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 for some reason Debian feels that longstanding packages and their well known binary names can be renamed at any given time (I seriously disagree with that mentality btw), I'd say then ALSO force the change of the node in Node.JS name to something more sane. Don't remove one poorly named file for a new poorly named one just because it's new and shiny. --David ___ 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
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
On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 01:34:47AM +0200, Jérémy Lal wrote: On 02/05/2012 00:16, Patrick Ouellette wrote: (shrinking cc list because I think I've said too much on -devel already) Hi Pat, Patrick Ouellette wrote: I was under the impression that neither package was going to move forward with a binary named node The proposal was made for a transition plan to be made then the nodejs person quit talking/posting. I think you misunderstood before. Ian suggested a way to move forward without having to rely on good faith on both sides: 1. node maintainer and nodejs maintainers prepare packages that remove the node command. 2. Maintainer of one of the two packages uploads both. 3. Usual mechanisms (release team, etc) ensure that the node command is not reintroduced. I think the maintainers of both packages were ok with that, but then step (1) never happened. I proposed a patch for the node package that does not involve removing the node command, and got no response, except a comment criticizing me for not being a ham radio user or testing it. I proposed a patch for the nodejs package that does not involve removing the node command, and it was applied. This is what I understood, and as a maintainer for one of the packages I was waiting for information from the node.js camp (agreement, etc.). I think the issue here is getting the nodejs maintainers onboard. That would be Jérémy Lal Jonas Smedegaard. I don't recall seeing either of them weigh in on the issue *ever*a (I could be wrong, it is late in the afternoon after a long day at work.) The issue was described by me and others in : http://bugs.debian.org/597571 http://bugs.debian.org/611698 http://bugs.debian.org/614907 and summed up in this thread and the previous ones. (I added lea...@debian.org to the Cc: because this is something that I think needs addressed at the leadership level) This is ridiculous. You clearly show you KNOW there is a conflict if you use the binary name, ask for the incumbent to change (they refuse) so you force the issue by releasing a package with the conflicting name *anyway* From the nodejs side, i don't see what we can say that hasn't been said. From the hamradio side, we are just waiting for an experienced user to explain how /usr/sbin/node is called, from command-line, from init scripts, from shebangs ? Subsidiary : Are there any cheap radio hardware i could buy to test it in a real setup ? You would need an amateur radio license in the jurisdiction you live in. It might be easier for you to look for a local ham radio operator/club and see if they use Linux and the ax25 software. Pat ___ 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
FWIW, the ham radio node package has been in Debian since 1999 according to packages.debian.org. On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 01:50:03AM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote: [...] 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. Likewise I can argue the number of people with installed ham radio systems is a good reason NOT to change the current situation. 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. 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. Ham radio is the open source (predates open source software) version of emergency communications and during normal times communications. To ensure coverage by radio, you need your antenna up high. You can build a tower, use a tall building, or use a hill/mountain. Each has it's own set of access challenges for maintaining the equipment. That is why ham radio equipment is durable, and often designed to run without constant maintenance. In our modern world, one of the utilities to fail in an emergency are often the telephone and cell phone systems. If they have not suffered physical damage, they quickly become overloaded to the point of uselessness. Recovery from physical damage can take from hours to weeks to months to years depending on the location. A ham radio operator can show up with a portable antenna structure, antenna, radio, and computer and get essential communications back in an area faster than the utility companies in many instances. If the high antenna / system is damaged, several hams can set up radio nodes at lower elevations to cover the affected area. This equipment may be (and often is) set up in advance, and not continuously running. (Yes this creates other issues with maintaining the equipment in a state of readiness.) Here is one potential scenario: 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). They respond to an emergency, only to find their kit is broken and they have no way to fix it because there is no internet connectivity. The emergency communications plan has to allow for malfunctions, but now they are operating in scramble mode instead of the comfortable drilled and tested mode. Ham radio operators do this FOR FREE, just like open source software developers. Changing the ham radio node without a transition plan (most likely a multi-release plan) is throwing the ham radio people under the bus in deference to the current hot thing. 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. You will never get a script that is robust enough to do this. There is a reason maintainer scripts don't change config files that have been customized by the user. I also seem to recall a Debian policy issue about not messing with another package's files. I would not take away the conclusion that we should block Node.js from entering the archive for this. I would take away that node.js is free to enter the archive immediately if they change their binary name from /usr/bin/node to some other name not already in Debian. The insistence on a new package using an already established package's binary name is the problem. I believe the burden of creating the transition should be on the node.js packager since they are the cause of the conflict. Not that what I believe matters here. 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. :) If it were easy to get an exception, why has this not already happened? Policy is not irrelevant. It is one of the foundations of the
Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Node.js and it's future in debian
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
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.
What I could do is instance mediate among the parties. But for that, I
think it'd be better to find someone who is more informed than me on the
technical issues on both sides. Ideal candidate would probably be
someone who uses both packages and can better asses the respective
disadvantages of switching to a different name.
All in all, if you really can't reach consensus via discussion among the
respective maintainers, it looks like you probably need the tech-ctte
more than you need the DPL. But please be advised that it would be much
better to find a solution among the respective maintainers, as that
would be an agreed upon solution, whereas a tech-ctte ruling will likely
leave behind at least one dissatisfied part.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} . o .
Maître de conférences .. http://upsilon.cc/zack .. . . o
Debian Project Leader... @zack on identi.ca ...o o o
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
signature.asc
Description: Digital 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
Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Node.js and it's future in debian
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
On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 12:13:49PM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote: 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? I never said it did. Clearly both sides have valid reasons to not change. Equally clear to me is one side ignored policy and created an issue to attempt to force a resolution they hope will be in their favor rather than solve the issue first. 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. The scripts (on either side) could be changed with a scripted change. If it is so simple to change the configuration files for the ham radio users, why has not a Node.js person put forth code to do this and advocated it on debian-hams and linux-hams? (The patch sent does not address automatically updating anything) I've discussed it with other ham radio operators. They shudder at the thought of changing the name because of the possible issues that will come up. [...] 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. The Node.js people apparently didn't ask for one either pot - kettle - black As for the last line, if I thought the opponent did not care or was not going to listen I would not waste the time putting forth my position. Since it would seem that is where we are, I won't continue to waste my time. Here is my proposal: Node.js people, put forth a reasonable and workable plan to allow hundreds or thousands of ham radio users to transition from /usr/sbin/node to /usr/sbin/axnode, including reliable shell scripts to verify all the files on the system are identified and allowed to be patched or manually modified. You created the situation, you provide the manpower to resolve it in the way you prefer. Pat - NE4PO ___ 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
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
Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Node.js and it's future in debian
On 02/05/2012 00:16, Patrick Ouellette wrote: On Tue, May 01, 2012 at 04:53:05PM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote: Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 16:53:05 -0500 From: Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com Subject: Re: Node.js and it's future in debian To: Patrick Ouellette ne...@arrl.net Cc: n...@packages.debian.org, nod...@packages.debian.org (shrinking cc list because I think I've said too much on -devel already) Hi Pat, Patrick Ouellette wrote: I was under the impression that neither package was going to move forward with a binary named node The proposal was made for a transition plan to be made then the nodejs person quit talking/posting. I think you misunderstood before. Ian suggested a way to move forward without having to rely on good faith on both sides: 1. node maintainer and nodejs maintainers prepare packages that remove the node command. 2. Maintainer of one of the two packages uploads both. 3. Usual mechanisms (release team, etc) ensure that the node command is not reintroduced. I think the maintainers of both packages were ok with that, but then step (1) never happened. I proposed a patch for the node package that does not involve removing the node command, and got no response, except a comment criticizing me for not being a ham radio user or testing it. I proposed a patch for the nodejs package that does not involve removing the node command, and it was applied. This is what I understood, and as a maintainer for one of the packages I was waiting for information from the node.js camp (agreement, etc.). I think the issue here is getting the nodejs maintainers onboard. That would be Jérémy Lal Jonas Smedegaard. I don't recall seeing either of them weigh in on the issue *ever*a (I could be wrong, it is late in the afternoon after a long day at work.) The issue was described by me and others in : http://bugs.debian.org/597571 http://bugs.debian.org/611698 http://bugs.debian.org/614907 and summed up in this thread and the previous ones. From the nodejs side, i don't see what we can say that hasn't been said. From the hamradio side, we are just waiting for an experienced user to explain how /usr/sbin/node is called, from command-line, from init scripts, from shebangs ? Subsidiary : Are there any cheap radio hardware i could buy to test it in a real setup ? Kindly, Jérémy Lal ___ 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
Sounding off with a significant amount of restraint... On 05/01/2012 06:16 PM, Patrick Ouellette wrote: On Tue, May 01, 2012 at 04:53:05PM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote: Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 16:53:05 -0500 From: Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com Subject: Re: Node.js and it's future in debian To: Patrick Ouellette ne...@arrl.net Cc: n...@packages.debian.org, nod...@packages.debian.org (shrinking cc list because I think I've said too much on -devel already) Hi Pat, Patrick Ouellette wrote: I was under the impression that neither package was going to move forward with a binary named node The proposal was made for a transition plan to be made then the nodejs person quit talking/posting. I think you misunderstood before. Ian suggested a way to move forward without having to rely on good faith on both sides: 1. node maintainer and nodejs maintainers prepare packages that remove the node command. 2. Maintainer of one of the two packages uploads both. 3. Usual mechanisms (release team, etc) ensure that the node command is not reintroduced. I think the maintainers of both packages were ok with that, but then step (1) never happened. I proposed a patch for the node package that does not involve removing the node command, and got no response, except a comment criticizing me for not being a ham radio user or testing it. I proposed a patch for the nodejs package that does not involve removing the node command, and it was applied. This is what I understood, and as a maintainer for one of the packages I was waiting for information from the node.js camp (agreement, etc.). I think the issue here is getting the nodejs maintainers onboard. That would be Jérémy Lal Jonas Smedegaard. I don't recall seeing either of them weigh in on the issue *ever*a (I could be wrong, it is late in the afternoon after a long day at work.) Everyone has been quiet because talking is exhausting. Action that prevents the need to talk and guess about people would be much appreciated. A lot of time has passed since then. Several people mentioned that just like the case of Solomon offering to split a baby in two, the option of both renaming is meant to force a decision, not to encourage the project to cut off its nose to spite its face. I personally believe that if you consider the projects independently of Debian: - LinuxNode would benefit from renaming its binary to something that does not conflict with Node.js - Node.js would benefit from having a synonym that does not conflict with LinuxNode The ham radio node package was uploaded in 2005. The binary existed as part of ax25-tools before then. (At least I think it was the -tools package, could have been libax25 or ax25-apps) How many ham radio operators expect a linux system to have /usr/sbin/node be the ham radio node package - I don't know. I do know none of them expect it to be the node.js node package. _ALL_ that use it _EXPECT_ /usr/bin/node to be in place and usable; and you are correct that node.js is totally unwelcome. It is perfectly reasonable to have a transition plan to a new name. Given the age of the two packages, I'm not inclined to give up without a good reason. I know many ham radio operators who have equipment in difficult to reach areas (mountain tops for instance) who would have systems break on upgrade if /usr/sbin/node goes away abruptly. Changing it would break HUNDREDS if not THOUSANDS of systems worldwide! Maybe wheezy could be released with both /usr/bin/node and /usr/sbin/node present, and with configuration migrated to point to /usr/sbin/ax25-node. That configuration migrated part is way more important than the disposition of the node command, in my humble opinion. Policy does not allow this. If it did, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Pat All this (on this thread and in other threads) makes me wonder why a rule is not in place that requires one to be a ham radio operator before being allowed to mess with ham radio software. Dave - KB3EFS -- David A Aitcheson david.aitche...@gmail.com Go Green! Print this email only when necessary. ___ Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel
Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Node.js and it's future in debian
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
Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk writes: I also am biased in one direction but shall not say which as I see no benefit at this point in rehashing the discussion: Both packaging camps have clearly demonstrated a lack of interest in letting the other use the name node, which means we must both step off of it. Just today there was progress on the side of Node.js - see bug#650343. I think that having Node.js not provide the command node would be a real disservice to our users (and I say this as someone in neither camp; I've never used either program). -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ ___ 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
On Saturday, April 28, 2012 13:23:21, Russ Allbery wrote: Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk writes: I also am biased in one direction but shall not say which as I see no benefit at this point in rehashing the discussion: Both packaging camps have clearly demonstrated a lack of interest in letting the other use the name node, which means we must both step off of it. Just today there was progress on the side of Node.js - see bug#650343. I think that having Node.js not provide the command node would be a real disservice to our users (and I say this as someone in neither camp; I've never used either program). In terms of Debian dependencies, there don't seem to be any packages that depend on the 'node' package from the hamradio section. This makes it tougher to know what depends on the binary being named 'node'. A problem with the name 'node' is that it's painful to web search that name to try to find out what the project is for. :-/ This is another reason not to like the use of such a generic name. The hamradio 'node' program looks like it is meant to support several packet radio protocols, either for a computer acting as a packet radio router, packet radio BBS (bulletin-board system) or possibly for a user end-node. I believe all of these invovle a computer being hooked up to a TNC [Terminal Node Controller] which is then hooked up to a radio. For an example of what a TNC looks like, see [1]. Generally packet radio involves low data rate communication. At VHF frequencies this is generally limited to 1200 baud simplex (simplex means not being able to receive during transmission, whereas duplex means being able to do both simultaneously) -- so the actual throughput is always quite a bit less than the transmission baud rate. At UHF frequencies due to wider channels the packet can be a bit faster -- up to 9600 baud. [At SHF and higher frequencies data rates can be faster Some TNCs also support other things such as slow scan TV reception, Morse Code, RTTY, packet email (stored in the TNC momory, blinking light to indicate a message is waiting), packet message forwarding (so that a message from New York eventually is received in some other part of the country, all over radio), etc. Due to low data rates, packet radio isn't as popular today as it was in the 1990's, when telephone modems that were typically in use were also slow. [The early 90's is when I was doing packet radio.] [1] http://www.timewave.com/support/PK-232/PK232DSP.html -- Chris -- Chris Knadle, KB2IQN chris.kna...@coredump.us GPG Key: 4096R/0x1E759A726A9FDD74 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] Node.js and it's future in debian
Hello, 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 called node, and the upstream developers have refused to change it's binary name to nodejs for debian; * The the hamradio package node shipping a binary called node, and as it's so old, the developers argue that the package must ship a binary called node or breakage will occur. * The reason the nodejs developers want to ship the binary as node is because all programs written for nodejs all has /usr/bin/node in it's shebang * the nodejs package are not allowed to conflict on the node package just because the binary name is the same As I'm not a hamradio user, I'm off course biased towards letting nodejs having the node binary and let it pass to testing. But we must find a solution to this, as nodejs is getting more and more used, and developers are forced to install nodejs from source to be able to use it instead of install it via the package manager. Regards, Carl Fürstenberg ___ Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel
