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

[Steve Langasek]

On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 04:23:21PM -0500, Jonathan Nieder 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?

No, didn't know that.  Were these requests public, or can you tell me what
the upstream response was?

> I think an easier sell would be:

>  - just adding a command upstream, not renaming.

That's exactly what I'm proposing.

>  - 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.

Well, changing a filename should be trivial; should be no problem to feed
upstream a patch.

-- 
Steve Langasek   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@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

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

[Jérémy Lal]

On 03/05/2012 23:23, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> 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.
../..
>  - 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.
../..

Please note that nowadays Node.js upstream contact is
Isaac Schlueter 
as explained in
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/nodejs/hfajgpvGTLY

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

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

[Russ Allbery]

Ian Jackson  writes:

> I'm disappointed to see this is still rumbling on.  There is only one
> correct solution, and it is this:

>> In the long term, I would be happiest if both were renamed.

I won't reiterate the arguments that I've already made on debian-devel,
but will mention here for those who haven't been following that discussion
that I think I disagree.  Based on the information that I currently have
(and this has been changing over the course of the discussion), I think
Node.js should (eventually, with a suitable transition) have the name
node, since the use of it in the ham radio package is as an inetd-invoked
daemon and the renaming there doesn't have much impact.  (It's a system
interface, but not really a user interface.)

It's interesting that Fedora has nodejs, and I think we should also
provide nodejs and encourage people to use that name, but I think it would
be best for our users to also provide node.

I also think the current Policy suggestion to rename both programs in the
event of an unreconciled naming conflict is not a very good idea, and
think it should change to instead list the Technical Committee as the
decision-maker of last resort.  Renaming both programs is likely to be the
right move only in cases where both programs are pretty obscure and fairly
new.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@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

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

[Ian Jackson]

Jonathan Nieder writes ("tech-ctte: please help maintainers of packages with a 
"node" command to have a reasonable conversation"):
> The "node" and "nodejs" packages both provide a command named "node".

I'm disappointed to see this is still rumbling on.  There is only one
correct solution, and it is this:

> In the long term, I would be happiest if both were renamed.

I think the TC should rule along the following lines:

 1. We agree with the Policy requirements in this area.

 2. In this case, neither package is entitled to this name.
 
 3. All relevant packages must be changed (in unstable, experimental
and testing) not to provide a command "node".  This means that
no package may:
  - install a file "node" in any of the common PATH directories;
  - install a manpage for a command "node";
  - attempt by any other means to provide a command "node"; or
  - declare conflicts against "nodejs" or "node";
except as approved by the TC, or as explicitly agreed by the
maintainers of both the "node" and "nodejs" packages, such
agreement to be notified to the TC.

 4. If any package in unstable or experimental violates the rules
above later than <28 days from now>, this is cause for an NMU, and
in that case we specifically encourage the maintainer of the
competing package to make such an NMU.  Each maintainer is
entitled to do this even if they have not yet fixed their own
package.

 5. If such an NMU is needed the person doing it is entitled to simply
rename offending files in the package without considering
compatibility or transitional arrangements.

 7. Bugs arising in Debian due to the renaming of either version of
"node" are bugs in the depending packages, not in any package
which no longer provides "node".  Specifically, compatibility
issues due to the renaming should not block testing propagation of
the renamed packages.

 8. If a fix is needed in testing and cannot be made expeditiously via
unstable, the potential NMUer should consult the release team to
ask how to proceed (perhaps an update via testing-proposed-updates
will help).

 9. No package may in the future provide a command "node" without
permission from the TC.

This gives each maintainer 4 further weeks to construct and implement
a transition plan for their package.  Such a transition plan is of
course something each maintainer should already have ready, since the
policy requirement is very clear.  There is no further excuse for any
delay.

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

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

[Peter]

Jonathan Nieder schreef:

reassign 614907 tech-ctte
quit

Dear Technical Committee,
  

Welcome to the "kinder garden"

I will leave the group now

___
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