FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Debian > Debian Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 11-14-2011, 09:43 PM
Alex Pennace
 
Default Two groups of users, one distro in the middle

On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 09:09:09PM +0100, Vincent Bernat wrote:
> OoO En ce début d'après-midi nuageux du lundi 07 novembre 2011, vers
> 14:42, Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> disait*:
>
> > 2a. Likewise the maintainer of "nodejs" should prepare a version
> > of the package where the "node" binary is called "nodejs".
>
> As Patrick said earlier in the thread that not enough members seem to
> care about this, I add my voice here: node from node.js is often used in
> shebang while node from AX25 is not. Having a "nodejs" binary will
> cause many difficulties to our users.

While on the one hand, nodejs's claim to "node" is supported by ample
use in shebang lines, on the other hand AX25's claim to "node" is
supported by the fact that it was established well before the nodejs
project came along.

According to [1], this isn't the first time the nodejs folks ran into
a name problem. Up until March of 2009 they were using the name
"server," a far too generic name that compelled them to switch to the
current "node." Even then they should have realized that the new name
was too generic.

In any case, the choice of name wasn't Debian's fault.

> What if the problem was raised ten years ago about Python for
> example. What an horrible mess it would be today if the python binary
> was called "python-py" or "python-script".

We'll never know. Python didn't choose a name that was too generic.

> See how communities may react to this. Ruby community does not like our
> packaging just because we enforce stability over freshness. What would
> think node.js community if we are using /usr/bin/nodejs instead of
> /usr/bin/node.

Clearly, the nodejs community would not be pleased. On the other hand,
the AX25 community would not be pleased about being forced to rename
if it fell on them. So the real question is which community should
bear the costs of resolving this conflict?

At this stage, it looks like neither side is willing to budge, so
logic and Debian policy say both must bear the costs.

> Debian would be listed as a black sheep in every FAQ or
> tutorial and users will be invited to just install some non official
> package or use the source.

I would hope that those FAQs spell out the real reason for the
discrepency, which is there was a name conflict and Debian, in an
attempt to serve both communities fairly, made both packages rename
away from "node."

Alternately, the nodejs folks could switch to the name "nodejs"
upstream as well.

[1] http://bugs.debian.org/611698#40


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20111114224322.GA3889@buick.pennace.org">http://lists.debian.org/20111114224322.GA3889@buick.pennace.org
 
Old 11-14-2011, 10:50 PM
Jonathan Nieder
 
Default Two groups of users, one distro in the middle

Hi,

Alex Pennace wrote:

> According to [1], this isn't the first time the nodejs folks ran into
> a name problem. Up until March of 2009 they were using the name
> "server,"

I suspect this was just a working title for the program being
developed, in the half month before Ryan was able to come up with a
real name[2]. I mentioned it in [1] just as a "Why the name?" factoid
and have regretted mentioning it ever since.

> [1] http://bugs.debian.org/611698#40
[2] commit 19478ed4: 'Major refactoring: program name now "node"',
2009-03-03.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20111114235008.GA5190@elie.hsd1.il.comcast.net">ht tp://lists.debian.org/20111114235008.GA5190@elie.hsd1.il.comcast.net
 
Old 11-14-2011, 11:14 PM
Alex Pennace
 
Default Two groups of users, one distro in the middle

On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 05:50:08PM -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Alex Pennace wrote:
>
> > According to [1], this isn't the first time the nodejs folks ran into
> > a name problem. Up until March of 2009 they were using the name
> > "server,"
>
> I suspect this was just a working title for the program being
> developed, in the half month before Ryan was able to come up with a
> real name[2]. I mentioned it in [1] just as a "Why the name?" factoid
> and have regretted mentioning it ever since.
>
> > [1] http://bugs.debian.org/611698#40
> [2] commit 19478ed4: 'Major refactoring: program name now "node"',
> 2009-03-03.

Fair enough, I withdraw that assertion.

Even without that point, the conclusion remains the same: Both
projects should endure the rename (unless one concedes), and that
shouldn't be viewed in terms of "look at what those meanies in Debian
are making us do" but instead regarded as a natural outcome of the
choices each project made at various times.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20111115001402.GB3889@buick.pennace.org">http://lists.debian.org/20111115001402.GB3889@buick.pennace.org
 
Old 11-14-2011, 11:48 PM
Paul Wise
 
Default Two groups of users, one distro in the middle

On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 8:14 AM, Alex Pennace wrote:

> Even without that point, the conclusion remains the same: Both
> projects should endure the rename (unless one concedes), and that
> shouldn't be viewed in terms of "look at what those meanies in Debian
> are making us do" but instead regarded as a natural outcome of the
> choices each project made at various times.

I personally wonder if we should change our policy instead of forcing
these two upstream communities into conflict.

--
bye,
pabs

http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: CAKTje6H5X+UUa0AuARqkos_grxfPTn5RbM+UqzoO=WWxsv+sR g@mail.gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/CAKTje6H5X+UUa0AuARqkos_grxfPTn5RbM+UqzoO=WWxsv+sR g@mail.gmail.com
 
Old 11-15-2011, 08:43 AM
Charles Plessy
 
Default Two groups of users, one distro in the middle

Le Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 08:48:57AM +0800, Paul Wise a écrit :
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 8:14 AM, Alex Pennace wrote:
>
> > Even without that point, the conclusion remains the same: Both
> > projects should endure the rename (unless one concedes), and that
> > shouldn't be viewed in terms of "look at what those meanies in Debian
> > are making us do" but instead regarded as a natural outcome of the
> > choices each project made at various times.
>
> I personally wonder if we should change our policy instead of forcing
> these two upstream communities into conflict.

I agree. One possiblity when packages A and B conflict for a program name
would be to rename, but in addition to provide a wrapper that executes the
program from A when only A is installed, from B when only B is installed, and
that gives an error reporting alternative path names when both A and B are
installed. The wrappers for all names could be provided by a third package.

Have a nice day,

--
Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20111115094358.GE27596@merveille.plessy.net">http://lists.debian.org/20111115094358.GE27596@merveille.plessy.net
 
Old 11-15-2011, 12:34 PM
Ian Jackson
 
Default Two groups of users, one distro in the middle

Charles Plessy writes ("Re: Two groups of users, one distro in the middle"):
> I agree. One possiblity when packages A and B conflict for a program name
> would be to rename, but in addition to provide a wrapper that executes the
> program from A when only A is installed, from B when only B is installed, and
> that gives an error reporting alternative path names when both A and B are
> installed. The wrappers for all names could be provided by a third package.

I don't think this ia a good idea. The result would be that
installing an additional package could break the operation of
an unrelated package.

If users desperately want to do this themselves there is no reason why
they shouldn't symlink /usr/bin/node -> nodejs themselves - apart
from, of course, the reasons why they shouldn't.

But we should absolutely not support it. I have no sympathy at all
for nodejs upstream on this matter.

Ian.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20162.27255.473822.488324@chiark.greenend.org.uk"> http://lists.debian.org/20162.27255.473822.488324@chiark.greenend.org.uk
 
Old 11-15-2011, 01:33 PM
Gergely Nagy
 
Default Two groups of users, one distro in the middle

Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org> writes:

> On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 8:14 AM, Alex Pennace wrote:
>
>> Even without that point, the conclusion remains the same: Both
>> projects should endure the rename (unless one concedes), and that
>> shouldn't be viewed in terms of "look at what those meanies in Debian
>> are making us do" but instead regarded as a natural outcome of the
>> choices each project made at various times.
>
> I personally wonder if we should change our policy instead of forcing
> these two upstream communities into conflict.

In that case, I'll consider un-deprecating dpatch, and since it can very
well be used outside of Debian, rename it to patch.

Looking at our reverse deps and build-deps, as far as build-deps are
concerned, the patch and dpatch camp is farily equal (937 vs 764), which
is a much much smaller difference than in the node-vs-nodejs case, so
I'll be looking forward to having patch renamed to patch.gnu or similar.

(FYI, I'm a reasonablye person, so as long as patch gets renamed, I'll
be content with my patch being patch.dpatch, and I'm willing to bear the
consequences of having to adapt all scripts that use the old name, to
use the new one.)
</sarcasm>

Just because two upstreams can't agree, and both choose a name far too
generic, we shouldn't make our policies more forgiving to such
sillyness.

Furthermore, packages in Debian are - to the best of my knowledge -
adapted already to use /usr/bin/nodejs, packages outside can still work
unmodified, if the user makes a simple symlink. Document this, and all's
well.

Perhaps this will stop another upstream from choosing a similarly
generic name.

In all honesty, I fail to see the harm done, apart from some very minor
inconvenience, which can be trivially worked around.

--
|8]


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 87zkfxihgh.fsf@algernon.balabit">http://lists.debian.org/87zkfxihgh.fsf@algernon.balabit
 
Old 11-15-2011, 01:44 PM
"Milan P. Stanic"
 
Default Two groups of users, one distro in the middle

On Tue, 2011-11-15 at 13:34, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Charles Plessy writes ("Re: Two groups of users, one distro in the middle"):
> > I agree. One possiblity when packages A and B conflict for a program name
> > would be to rename, but in addition to provide a wrapper that executes the
> > program from A when only A is installed, from B when only B is installed, and
> > that gives an error reporting alternative path names when both A and B are
> > installed. The wrappers for all names could be provided by a third package.
>
> I don't think this ia a good idea. The result would be that
> installing an additional package could break the operation of
> an unrelated package.
>
> If users desperately want to do this themselves there is no reason why
> they shouldn't symlink /usr/bin/node -> nodejs themselves - apart
> from, of course, the reasons why they shouldn't.
>
> But we should absolutely not support it. I have no sympathy at all
> for nodejs upstream on this matter.

As a user/admin I fully agree with you. Debian policy should be changed
to state something like "First come, first served". Principle of least
surprise.

ax25 packages are in Debian for more than ten years, IIRC.

What to do if someone create {some}script language and call it 'cat' and
refuse to rename it because s/he like cats. ;-)

--
Kind regards, Milan
--------------------------------------------------
Arvanta, IT Security http://www.arvanta.net
Please do not send me e-mail containing HTML code or documents in
proprietary format (word, excel, pps and so on)


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20111115144448.GA24226@arvanta.net">http://lists.debian.org/20111115144448.GA24226@arvanta.net
 
Old 11-15-2011, 02:28 PM
sean finney
 
Default Two groups of users, one distro in the middle

On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 03:33:02PM +0100, Gergely Nagy wrote:
> Furthermore, packages in Debian are - to the best of my knowledge -
> adapted already to use /usr/bin/nodejs, packages outside can still work
> unmodified, if the user makes a simple symlink. Document this, and all's
> well.

I don't think the symlink is even necessary, and is probably a bad idea
in case the other package providing node was installed. instead, ship
the binary in /usr/lib/nodejs/node (or similar), and instruct users that
if they need "upstream compatibility", to simply

export PATH=/usr/lib/nodejs:$PATH

and problem solved, right?



sean


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20111115152833.GA21147@cobija.connexer.com">http://lists.debian.org/20111115152833.GA21147@cobija.connexer.com
 
Old 11-15-2011, 03:04 PM
Joey Hess
 
Default Two groups of users, one distro in the middle

Alex Pennace wrote:
> Clearly, the nodejs community would not be pleased. On the other hand,
> the AX25 community would not be pleased about being forced to rename
> if it fell on them. So the real question is which community should
> bear the costs of resolving this conflict?
>
> At this stage, it looks like neither side is willing to budge, so
> logic and Debian policy say both must bear the costs.

That seemed to make sense the first time I read it, but the more I think
about it the less convinced I am. The actual costs of Debian renaming
both `node`s will mostly be borne by Debian, and our users, not by the
upstream projects. There's really no point in trying to punish the
upstreams at all, because the next naming conflict is sure to involve
two different upstreams; such punishment has no deterrent value, and
only sours things. And not letting the most-popular name win flies in
the face of recent history: chromium the browser conflicted with
chromium the game and won; git the VCS conflicted with git the
little-used gnu tools, and won.

--
see shy jo, who is currently involved in a naming conflict over "parallel"
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 03:35 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org