Linux Archive

Linux Archive (http://www.linux-archive.org/)
-   Debian Development (http://www.linux-archive.org/debian-development/)
-   -   Is anyone maintaining (the ham radio tool) node? (http://www.linux-archive.org/debian-development/595117-anyone-maintaining-ham-radio-tool-node.html)

Jonathan Nieder 11-06-2011 06:27 AM

Is anyone maintaining (the ham radio tool) node?
 
Hi,

In February, I wrote[1]:

> Both LinuxNode (package "node") and node.js (package "nodejs") are
> designed to be accessed through the command name "node".
[...]
> If there is any way I can help, please feel free to ask.

No response from the "node" package maintainers. My offer still
stands, but I am worried that this is not going to be fixed before the
next release.

So, what next? Should the node package be orphaned? Based on popcon,
it seems to have a small but respectable and growing number of users.
Maybe if the current status of the package were more obvious, someone
would start working on it (well, one can hope).

Yours,
Jonathan

[1] http://bugs.debian.org/614907


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20111106072651.GA31593@elie.hsd1.il.comcast.net">h ttp://lists.debian.org/20111106072651.GA31593@elie.hsd1.il.comcast.net

Patrick Ouellette 11-07-2011 01:58 AM

Is anyone maintaining (the ham radio tool) node?
 
On Sun, Nov 06, 2011 at 01:27:42AM -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> In February, I wrote[1]:
>
> > Both LinuxNode (package "node") and node.js (package "nodejs") are
> > designed to be accessed through the command name "node".
> [...]
> > If there is any way I can help, please feel free to ask.
>
> No response from the "node" package maintainers. My offer still
> stands, but I am worried that this is not going to be fixed before the
> next release.
>
> So, what next? Should the node package be orphaned? Based on popcon,
> it seems to have a small but respectable and growing number of users.
> Maybe if the current status of the package were more obvious, someone
> would start working on it (well, one can hope).
>

Popcorn is not a definitive measure of a package's use or usefulness to
a group of people. Not every machine runs popcorn.

Debian maintainers, like all free software maintainers, work on what they
choose to work on for their own reasons and in their own time frame. Please
do not confuse a lack of updates with a lack of active maintainer(s). The
upstream AX25 tools have not had much activity and for the most part do what
they are designed to do.

The binary on the ham radio side is not "LinuxNode" in package "node" it is
simply "node" in package "node"

Since you are still concerned with this issue, and neither side has shown a
willingness to change, I would say the time has come for both packages to be
renamed.

Pat (one of the unresponsive ham radio maintainers)
--

Patrick Ouellette pat@flying-gecko.net
ne4po (at) arrl (dot) net Amateur Radio: NE4PO

What kind of change have you been in the world today?

Jonathan Nieder 11-07-2011 02:20 AM

Is anyone maintaining (the ham radio tool) node?
 
Hi Pat,

Patrick Ouellette wrote:

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

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

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

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

> Pat (one of the unresponsive ham radio maintainers)

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


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20111107032031.GA25810@elie.hsd1.il.comcast.net">h ttp://lists.debian.org/20111107032031.GA25810@elie.hsd1.il.comcast.net

Patrick Ouellette 11-07-2011 02:45 AM

Is anyone maintaining (the ham radio tool) node?
 
On Sun, Nov 06, 2011 at 09:20:31PM -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>
> Hi Pat,
>
> Patrick Ouellette wrote:
>
> > The binary on the ham radio side is not "LinuxNode" in package "node" it is
> > simply "node" in package "node"
> >
> > Since you are still concerned with this issue, and neither side has shown a
> > willingness to change, I would say the time has come for both packages to be
> > renamed.
>
> Just to be clear: both package names are fine --- it's the names of
> the binaries that cause trouble.
>
> Being a user of neither package, I'd actually prefer for the name of
> the javascript interpreter to stay "node" (sorry!). It is the
> difference between needing to change the configuration of one
> superserver and needing to change the shebang line and content of many
> scripts. However, if the only way to include both node and nodejs in
> wheezy is for the interpreter binary to be renamed, too, that's ok
> with me. There's currently a release-critical bug against nodejs
> about that.

You claim to not use either package, but yet you advocate for the node.js
package to keep the executable name "node" - this is strange to me.

Having a vested interest in the ham radio package retaining the name "node"
and pointing out the history of the ham radio package being in Debian long
before the node.js package, I want the ham radio package to retain the name.

Apparently a consensus has not been reached, or at least not one that you
recognize. In the event of no consensus, Debian policy calls for *both*
packages to have their binaries renamed. You even say as much in the bug
report you filed against the node package.

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

When you assume something..... (if you don't know the rest of the quote,
google it)


Are you a ham radio operator, or do you have another reason to be interested
in the eventual name of the ham radio package? There is currently a bug against
the ham radio package for the binary name conflict. This is sufficient pending
the outcome of the "what package (if any) may retain the binary name node"
discussions. When the ham radio maintainers decide on how to implement the
fix, they will. If you wish to join the ham radio maintainers group, we can
discuss that.

Pat

--

Patrick Ouellette pat@flying-gecko.net
ne4po (at) arrl (dot) net Amateur Radio: NE4PO

What kind of change have you been in the world today?


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20111107034509.GC16217@flying-gecko.net">http://lists.debian.org/20111107034509.GC16217@flying-gecko.net

Jonathan Nieder 11-07-2011 04:32 AM

Is anyone maintaining (the ham radio tool) node?
 
Patrick Ouellette wrote:

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

Sorry, I must have been unclear. I was only explaining my preference.
I wasn't lying. I also said:

>> However, if the only way to include both node and nodejs in
>> wheezy is for the interpreter binary to be renamed, too, that's ok
>> with me.

Indeed, renaming both is what policy (and good sense) requires in the
absence of consensus. I guess it was foolish of me to imagine that
there could be a discussion resulting in consensus based on something
other than which tool is most important! (Both tools are obviously
important in their communities.)

[...]
> Are you a ham radio operator, or do you have another reason to be interested
> in the eventual name of the ham radio package?
[...]
> When the ham radio maintainers decide on how to implement the
> fix, they will.

No, I am not a ham radio operator. I was worried because this
(release-critical) bug had received no response for three quarters of
a year. I'm glad to hear you say "when" rather than "if" here --- as
far as I can tell, you are saying that I should not be worried and
this bug is not stalled after all.

I am interested in Debian remaining useful for a variety of purposes,
which is why I want to see some proposed fix enter unstable early
enough to shake out problems so wheezy can both include fundamental
tools for ham radio operators and for web developers.

Sorry for the lack of clarity.
Jonathan


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20111107053255.GC25810@elie.hsd1.il.comcast.net">h ttp://lists.debian.org/20111107053255.GC25810@elie.hsd1.il.comcast.net

Jonathan Nieder 11-07-2011 04:53 AM

Is anyone maintaining (the ham radio tool) node?
 
(+cc: nodejs@packages.debian.org. Sorry for the noise.)
Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Patrick Ouellette wrote:

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

A few more words of clarification:

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

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

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

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

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


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20111107055326.GD25810@elie.hsd1.il.comcast.net">h ttp://lists.debian.org/20111107055326.GD25810@elie.hsd1.il.comcast.net

Ian Jackson 11-07-2011 12:42 PM

Is anyone maintaining (the ham radio tool) node?
 
Jonathan Nieder writes ("Is anyone maintaining (the ham radio tool) node?"):
> No response from the "node" package maintainers. My offer still
> stands, but I am worried that this is not going to be fixed before the
> next release.
>
> So, what next?

Our policy says that if consensus cannot be reached, both packages'
binaries should be renamed. That seems to be the case here. I agree
with the policy statement that both packages' binaries should be
renamed. (But then I would say that since I wrote the policy.)

However, we have a process difficulty, which I think may be part of
what is blocking these changes from being made. Normally a maintainer
would make such a change to their own package. However, if the
maintainer of package A uploads a rename of their binary to foo-A, the
maintainer of package B now has no more incentive to fix the problem.
A's maintainer leaves themselves open to the maintainer of B "winning"
through B's inaction.

Now I'm not accusing anyone of dishonesty or bad faith, but it's easy
to see how this is not an attractive proposition for A, particularly
given that in Debian we don't have any tradition of forcing people in
B's situation to act and our mechanisms for bypassing an inactive B
are cumbersome and slow (to say the least).


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


So I would suggest that:

1a. The maintainer of "node" should prepare a new version of the
package where the "node" binary is called "ax25-node", and
containing whatever transitional arrrangements etc. they are
happy with. (It may be necessary for the maintainers to notify
each other of their proposed new version numbers, so that the
package dependencies can be correct.)

However, the "node" maintainer should not sign the package and
should not actually upload it. They should instead put it on a
public server (not mentors.debian.net, to avoid accidents!) and
send an email (signed with their Debian key) with the details
(including the checksum of the .changes) to the bug report and
the "nodejs" maintainer.

(1b. If the maintainer of "node" is not a DD or DM, and therefore
normally needs a sponsor for their own uploads, they should now
seek and obtain technical review from a sponsor. The sponsor
should, if satisfied, send an email to that effect signed with
their Debian key.)

1c. The maintainer of "nodejs" should download this package and
review the handling of the name change. If the "nodejs"
maintainer considers that this upload fixes the problem
according to policy they should say so.

Simultanously:

2a. Likewise the maintainer of "nodejs" should prepare a version
of the package where the "node" binary is called "nodejs".

(2b. Likewise any necessary sponsor review of "nodejs".)

2c. The maintainer of "node" should review this, as above.

After mutual approval of each package by both maintainers, ie after
each maintainer has said "yes" in step 1c/2c:

3. Either maintainer may upload _both_ packages. (In general this
would most conveniently be done by the maintainer who is the
later to give their approval.) The maintainer doing the
uploading should upload their own package first.

(3a. Alternatively, if either of the maintainers is not a DD,
the may request a sponsor to upload both packages. The sponsor
should confirm both approvals as above, and also confirm that
any necessary sponsor review by a DD took place earlier, but
need not undertake a technical review.)

4. If something goes wrong with this process, which results in only
one of the packages having its binary renamed in the archive,
both maintainers agree that the other maintainer may send an NMU
to fix this to DELAYED-7.

I include the stuff about sponsors, and failure recovery, in case it's
relevant, so that my proposal can be used as a template in future
cases.

Ian.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20151.57412.130027.129313@chiark.greenend.org.uk"> http://lists.debian.org/20151.57412.130027.129313@chiark.greenend.org.uk

Damien Gardner Jnr 11-07-2011 07:16 PM

Is anyone maintaining (the ham radio tool) node?
 
On 07/11/2011, at 2:20 PM, Jonathan Nieder wrote:Should the binary on the ham radio side be called ax25-node, or
LinuxNode, or something like that? *Given a proposed name, I would be
happy enough to assume I have your blessing and start sending patches
to the node bug. :)

I have to pop my head up from my lurker-hole here, and say that I'm a more than a little confused, why a 15 year old application should change its name at all? *Even the Node.js wiki makes it clear that the application should be called Node.js 'to disambiguate it from other nodes' - it sounds like the developers are being proactive in notifying users that they picked a name which conflicts with other packages?
I don't know about others, but I'm not overly keen on the idea of reconfiguring machines which were installed last century, because a program which appeared in the last two years has the same name.. *If you think about it, node.js is *much* more 'able' to change the name of its binary - it still has an actively developed community! *- I don't know about other folk, but I find it pretty darned hard to find much 'current' documentation about a lot of the older x.25 & bbs stuff I have running on some of my older boxen - one of my BBS packages doesn't even appear in a google search anymore (god help me if the wrapper I setup in 2001 to make it telnet-accessible as well as dial-in, ever breaks ;) )
Although I'm curious why both packages can't just shove a Conflicts: in for each other, and be done with it? *Or just leave it as is, since they're in different directories, provided a nice big must-click-ok dialog comes up during install/upgrade to notify the user of the change? *From the AX.25 side, and probably at least partly from the Node.js side, the users are going to be fairly cluey, if not accomplished hackerers - having multiple binaries of the same name, in different directories in the path is nothing new (hell, we used to rely on it on some of our hosting servers - things like reboot, shutdown, etc were wrappered with scripts in higher-preferenced directories from the PATH, to make sure accidental reboots, shutdowns, rm's etc, couldn't happen, as explicit paths had to be used.. * As for scripts etc, well, if you're not specifying the absolute path to any binary you're calling, you're just asking for trouble anyway!
Cheers,
DG
Damien Gardner Jnr
VK2TDG. Dip EE. GradIEAust
rendrag@rendrag.net - *http://www.rendrag.net/
--
We rode on the winds of the rising storm,
*We ran to the sounds of thunder.
We danced among the lightning bolts,
*and tore the world asunder

Patrick Ouellette 11-08-2011 06:48 PM

Is anyone maintaining (the ham radio tool) node?
 
On Tue, Nov 08, 2011 at 07:16:35AM +1100, Damien Gardner Jnr wrote:
>
> I have to pop my head up from my lurker-hole here, and say that I'm a more than a little confused, why a 15 year old application should change its name at all? Even the Node.js wiki makes it clear that the application should be called Node.js 'to disambiguate it from other nodes' - it sounds like the developers are being proactive in notifying users that they picked a name which conflicts with other packages?
>

You would think there would be some weight given to the length of time a
binary has been in the project, but there is not. First come, first served
does not apply according to Debian Policy.

> I don't know about others, but I'm not overly keen on the idea of reconfiguring machines which were installed last century, because a program which appeared in the last two years has the same name.. If you think about it, node.js is *much* more 'able' to change the name of its binary - it still has an actively developed community! - I don't know about other folk, but I find it pretty darned hard to find much 'current' documentation about a lot of the older x.25 & bbs stuff I have running on some of my older boxen - one of my BBS packages doesn't even appear in a google search anymore (god help me if the wrapper I setup in 2001 to make it telnet-accessible as well as dial-in, ever breaks ;) )

I hope to avoid any issues with breaking old boxes with the eventual
resolution of the issue.

>
> Although I'm curious why both packages can't just shove a Conflicts: in for each other, and be done with it? Or just leave it as is, since they're in different directories, provided a nice big must-click-ok dialog comes up during install/upgrade to notify the user of the change? From the AX.25 side, and probably at least partly from the Node.js side, the users are going to be fairly cluey, if not accomplished hackerers - having multiple binaries of the same name, in different directories in the path is nothing new (hell, we used to rely on it on some of our hosting servers - things like reboot, shutdown, etc were wrappered with scripts in higher-preferenced directories from the PATH, to make sure accidental reboots, shutdowns, rm's etc, couldn't happen, as explicit paths had to be used.. As for scripts etc, well, if you're not specifying the absolute path to any binary you're calling, you're just asking for trouble anyway!
>

The issue is one of following policy. Debian policy doesn't allow such a
"resolution" to this issue. Consensus on which must change, or both must
change are the only allowed outcomes.

73,

Pat

--

Patrick Ouellette pat@flying-gecko.net
ne4po (at) arrl (dot) net Amateur Radio: NE4PO

What kind of change have you been in the world today?


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20111108194814.GD30829@flying-gecko.net">http://lists.debian.org/20111108194814.GD30829@flying-gecko.net

Philipp Kern 11-09-2011 07:33 AM

Is anyone maintaining (the ham radio tool) node?
 
On 2011-11-08, Patrick Ouellette <pat@flying-gecko.net> wrote:
> I hope to avoid any issues with breaking old boxes with the eventual
> resolution of the issue.

I don't know what's wrong with Jonathan Nieder's advise in [0] about helping
users with the conversion automatically. That's how it's usually done.
He even provided that patch.

Who would refer to the node binary as provided by the ham package node
except for the inetd and the ax25d superservers? (Serious question.)

Because as we're providing a whole distribution we could adjust the latter's
configuration file and ensure that both packages are upgraded (using Breaks,
for instance).

> The issue is one of following policy. Debian policy doesn't allow such a
> "resolution" to this issue. Consensus on which must change, or both must
> change are the only allowed outcomes.

In this case the two packages at least don't ship the same file. With the
current situation you can coinstall the packages and both parts ham and
nodejs shebangs will keep working.

But then policy talks of "filenames" and I don't know if that refers to files
with a full path or not… If so, invoking policy as a reason wouldn't help
here.

Kind regards
Philipp Kern

[0] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=614907


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: slrnjbken2.3js.trash@kelgar.0x539.de">http://lists.debian.org/slrnjbken2.3js.trash@kelgar.0x539.de


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:50 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.