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

[David A Aitcheson]

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 <jrnieder at gmail.com>
>> Subject:  Re: Node.js and it's future in debian
>> To: Patrick Ouellette <ne4po at arrl.net>
>> Cc: node at packages.debian.org, nodejs at 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.aitcheson at gmail.com

Go Green! Print this email only when necessary.