> As I understand it, Policy is broken here: if the two binaries where
> installed in /usr/bin, it would be fine (Policy-wise) to Conflict.
Our current Policy specifically prohibits that. See Policy 10.1:
Two different packages must not install programs with different
functionality but with the same filenames. (The case of two programs
having the same functionality but different implementations is handled
via "alternatives" or the "Conflicts" mechanism. See Maintainer
Scripts, Section 3.9 and Conflicting binary packages - Conflicts,
Section 7.4 respectively.) If this case happens, one of the programs
must be renamed. The maintainers should report this to the
debian-devel mailing list and try to find a consensus about which
program will have to be renamed. If a consensus cannot be reached,
both programs must be renamed.
If there's a gap in Policy, it's actually around the current situation
where the two binaries don't have the same paths, since it's not clear
what Policy means by "filename". But it's pretty obvious that the intent
of Policy is also to prohibit binaries with different functionality in
sbin and bin, given how unstable of a situation that creates with varying
PATH.
Now, that certainly doesn't rule out the sorts of solutions we're talking
about. As I mentioned elsewhere, the point of Policy is to make the
system usable, not to have packages follow Policy just for their own sake.
If we come up with a better way of solving this situation that requires an
exception to Policy for transitional or compatibility packages, I think
that's fine.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 87vck9cfb6.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu">http://lists.debian.org/87vck9cfb6.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu
05-06-2012, 07:49 PM
Jonas Smedegaard
Node.js and it's future in debian
Greetings, dear Debian developer,
[replying via bugreport as I am not subscribed to tech-ctte@d.o]
On 12-05-06 at 10:22am, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sat, May 05, 2012 at 03:07:27AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > We have until now maintained Nodejs only in unstable because
> > requests to rename axnode was met with either silence or refusal
> > with the reasoning that axnode was more widely used in Debian than
> > Nodejs.
>
> > Obviously Nodejs is not widely used in Debian when initially
> > packaged. So I've simply waited until it was really sensible to
> > make such comparison of popularity among the users of Debian. Which
> > seems to be the case now - even if still impaired by Nodejs only
> > offered to our users of unstable and experimental Debian.
>
> I find this response from you *very* disappointing. It implies that
> you knew that you had a responsibility to rename the Nodejs binary
> according to Policy, but that rather than acting in a timely manner to
> persuade upstream of the importance of renaming, you decided to wait
> until momentum was on your side so that you could have an outcome in
> your favor.
No, that is not what it means. You are reading timings into it that I
did not write there, and you are reading those timings wrong!
> My understanding is that Node.js is a three-year-old project, and that
> the namespace issue was first raised upstream at least a year and a
> half ago. We would have been in a much better position to resolve this
> in a manner that does right by our existing ham community if you had
> lived up to your moral obligations as a Debian developer *then*
> instead of letting the issue fester.
Your moral obligation, before throwing accusations like that, is to at
least investigate the issue, and ideally first asking nicely.
You can read from nodejs packaging changelog and git commits when I got
involved in the maintainance, and you can read from bugreports and
mailinglists how my fellow maintainer, Jérémy Lal, conducted those moral
obligations which you claim that I should've done before I even knew
what "node" meant.
> 'node' is a stupid name for a program, and this should have been
> impressed upon Node.js upstream early and often. We would have been
> in a position, together with other distributions, to force a sensible
> upstream name. I believe we no longer are in a position to do so, and
> even if we did, the transition now would be many times more disruptive
> for users than if this had been dealt with in 2010.
>
> > If Debian is frozen tomorrow, then Nodejs will not be part of it,
> > for the very reason that I *did* respect Policy.
>
> It may not be part of the release, but it will still be a mess for
> everyone involved.
Thanks to stoooopid actions by people not doing their homework, yes.
[x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
05-06-2012, 09:00 PM
"Thomas Preud'homme"
Node.js and it's future in debian
Le dimanche 6 mai 2012 21:49:11, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit :
> Greetings, dear Debian developer,
>
> [replying via bugreport as I am not subscribed to tech-ctte@d.o]
>
> On 12-05-06 at 10:22am, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Sat, May 05, 2012 at 03:07:27AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > > We have until now maintained Nodejs only in unstable because
> > > requests to rename axnode was met with either silence or refusal
> > > with the reasoning that axnode was more widely used in Debian than
> > > Nodejs.
> > >
> > > Obviously Nodejs is not widely used in Debian when initially
> > > packaged. So I've simply waited until it was really sensible to
> > > make such comparison of popularity among the users of Debian. Which
> > > seems to be the case now - even if still impaired by Nodejs only
> > > offered to our users of unstable and experimental Debian.
> >
> > I find this response from you *very* disappointing. It implies that
> > you knew that you had a responsibility to rename the Nodejs binary
> > according to Policy, but that rather than acting in a timely manner to
> > persuade upstream of the importance of renaming, you decided to wait
> > until momentum was on your side so that you could have an outcome in
> > your favor.
>
> No, that is not what it means. You are reading timings into it that I
> did not write there, and you are reading those timings wrong!
*
I believe the writing was just misleading and Steve just misunderstood it. I understood the same myself and I don't think I have any a priori on this since I am not at all involved. I believe this feeling come from the sentence "I've simply waiting until it was really sensible to make such a comparison of popularity".
*
So let's just assume it was a misunderstanding and go back to technical argument in order to avoid this discussion to become too heated.
*
>
> > My understanding is that Node.js is a three-year-old project, and that
> > the namespace issue was first raised upstream at least a year and a
> > half ago. We would have been in a much better position to resolve this
> > in a manner that does right by our existing ham community if you had
> > lived up to your moral obligations as a Debian developer *then*
> > instead of letting the issue fester.
>
> Your moral obligation, before throwing accusations like that, is to at
> least investigate the issue, and ideally first asking nicely.
>
> You can read from nodejs packaging changelog and git commits when I got
> involved in the maintainance, and you can read from bugreports and
> mailinglists how my fellow maintainer, Jérémy Lal, conducted those moral
> obligations which you claim that I should've done before I even knew
> what "node" meant.
>
> > 'node' is a stupid name for a program, and this should have been
> > impressed upon Node.js upstream early and often. We would have been
> > in a position, together with other distributions, to force a sensible
> > upstream name. I believe we no longer are in a position to do so, and
> > even if we did, the transition now would be many times more disruptive
> > for users than if this had been dealt with in 2010.
> >
> > > If Debian is frozen tomorrow, then Nodejs will not be part of it,
> > > for the very reason that I *did* respect Policy.
> >
> > It may not be part of the release, but it will still be a mess for
> > everyone involved.
>
> Thanks to stoooopid actions by people not doing their homework, yes.
>
>
> - Jonas
*
Best regards,
*
Thomas Preud'homme
05-06-2012, 09:19 PM
Jonas Smedegaard
Node.js and it's future in debian
On 12-05-06 at 11:00pm, Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
> Le dimanche 6 mai 2012 21:49:11, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit :
> > Greetings, dear Debian developer,
> >
> > [replying via bugreport as I am not subscribed to tech-ctte@d.o]
> >
> > On 12-05-06 at 10:22am, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > On Sat, May 05, 2012 at 03:07:27AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > > > We have until now maintained Nodejs only in unstable because
> > > > requests to rename axnode was met with either silence or refusal
> > > > with the reasoning that axnode was more widely used in Debian
> > > > than Nodejs.
> > > >
> > > > Obviously Nodejs is not widely used in Debian when initially
> > > > packaged. So I've simply waited until it was really sensible to
> > > > make such comparison of popularity among the users of Debian.
> > > > Which seems to be the case now - even if still impaired by
> > > > Nodejs only offered to our users of unstable and experimental
> > > > Debian.
> > >
> > > I find this response from you *very* disappointing. It implies
> > > that you knew that you had a responsibility to rename the Nodejs
> > > binary according to Policy, but that rather than acting in a
> > > timely manner to persuade upstream of the importance of renaming,
> > > you decided to wait until momentum was on your side so that you
> > > could have an outcome in your favor.
> >
> > No, that is not what it means. You are reading timings into it that
> > I did not write there, and you are reading those timings wrong!
>
> I believe the writing was just misleading and Steve just misunderstood
> it. I understood the same myself and I don't think I have any a priori
> on this since I am not at all involved. I believe this feeling come
> from the sentence "I've simply waiting until it was really sensible to
> make such a comparison of popularity".
>
> So let's just assume it was a misunderstanding and go back to
> technical argument in order to avoid this discussion to become too
> heated.
I am perfectly calm :-)
> > > My understanding is that Node.js is a three-year-old project, and
> > > that the namespace issue was first raised upstream at least a year
> > > and a half ago. We would have been in a much better position to
> > > resolve this in a manner that does right by our existing ham
> > > community if you had lived up to your moral obligations as a
> > > Debian developer *then* instead of letting the issue fester.
> >
> > Your moral obligation, before throwing accusations like that, is to
> > at least investigate the issue, and ideally first asking nicely.
...but even when calm, I do not approve of a fellow developer
patronizing me like that.
If _that_ can be the last word on this little sidestep, I am fine that
we all move on with the technical discussion.
[x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
05-07-2012, 06:41 PM
Philip Hands
Node.js and it's future in debian
On Sun, 6 May 2012 10:29:18 -0700, Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> wrote:
> On Sat, May 05, 2012 at 08:29:40AM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
> > 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
>
> As mentioned by Carsten Hey on debian-ctte, we should certainly keep the
> same binary package name ('node') to ensure smooth upgrades for users that
> already have it installed.
>
> > 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.
>
> Because Node.js is a scripting interpreter, I believe there's no point in
> trying to declare the package on the nodejs side 'legacy' unless there's a
> committment from upstream to deprecate the /usr/bin/node name.
>
> So from my perspective, the packages would be:
>
> Package: node
> Depends: ax25-node
> Conflicts: nodejs
> -- /usr/sbin/node -> /usr/sbin/ax25-node
>
> Package: ax25-node
> -- /usr/sbin/ax25-node
>
> Package: nodejs
> Conflicts: node
> -- /usr/bin/nodejs
> -- /usr/bin/node -> /usr/bin/nodejs
>
> > So this would need package replacement, which is a pain, and an
> > exception for a policy violation -- is that enough to kill the idea?
>
> I think it's an acceptable compromise under the circumstances.
This seems a little one-sided, as it inflicts the bulk of the work on
those that are less to blame.
It also prevents a HAM from deciding to dabble in Node.js while
preserving the 'node' name for their ax25 use.
I suppose if the ax25 maintainers think that this counts as a
compromise, that's up to them, but I actually rejected something very
similar to this while I was formulating my suggestion on the basis that
it lacks symmetry and so seems unfair.
I don't really see the point of adding the symlink to nodejs if you're
not putting it in a separate package -- one of the reasons I had for
doing that split was that it might allow us to later provide popcon
stats of the proportion's of node.js users that install the symlink
package as part of evidence to persuade upstream that it might be worth
entertaining a better binary name -- having them both in the same
package discards that information.
It also fails to draw people's attention to the problem as much as the
dual use of -legacy named packages -- N.B. I wasn't expecting those
packages to be retired quickly (or perhaps ever). The -legacy was meant
to be an attention grabber, and perhaps to reflect a hope that at some
point in the future one or both upstreams might switch to a better name.
It occurs to me that if we're going to allow this form of
conflicts-abuse, we should also insist that no dependencies are allowed
on the conflicting packages, to ensure that only the distinct binary
names are available for depending packages.
If we accept that restriction, then you'd want there to be a separate
package for the Node.js symlink, as otherwise no package would be able
to declare a dependency on Node.js, which would be inconvenient.
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
05-07-2012, 07:20 PM
Simon McVittie
Node.js and it's future in debian
On 07/05/12 19:41, Philip Hands wrote:
> The -legacy was meant
> to be an attention grabber, and perhaps to reflect a hope that at some
> point in the future one or both upstreams might switch to a better name.
I think "legacy" is rather misleading, since its upstream
(unfortunately) doesn't think there's anything "legacy" about that name.
> It occurs to me that if we're going to allow this form of
> conflicts-abuse, we should also insist that no dependencies are allowed
> on the conflicting packages, to ensure that only the distinct binary
> names are available for depending packages.
That sounds like a reasonable principle for cases like this where
installing the packages together makes sense (as opposed to packages
that Provide/Conflict over a common interface, like MTAs).
S
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 4FA8207C.20601@debian.org">http://lists.debian.org/4FA8207C.20601@debian.org
05-07-2012, 08:10 PM
David Weinehall
Node.js and it's future in debian
On Mon, May 07, 2012 at 07:41:33PM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
[snip]
> It also prevents a HAM from deciding to dabble in Node.js while
> preserving the 'node' name for their ax25 use.
Wasn't the main reason (apart from the seniority argument) for
preserving the node name for ax25 to prevent remote unmonitored highly
important systems from failing? Surely such systems are not quite
candidates for dabbling with Node.js on...
That said, there's no way we can solve this in a clean way. No matter
what solution is chosen in the end someone will suffer from it. No
matter who wins, the users lose :S And I don't blame the Debian
maintainers of either package. I think that the upstream for Node.js
should've done their homework a bit better though, and that the ax25
upstream should've had a bit more imagination. But shit happened
already.
Regards: David
--
/) David Weinehall <tao@debian.org> /) Rime on my window (
// ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ // Diamond-white roses of fire //
) http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ (/ Beautiful hoar-frost (/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20120507201039.GD10339@suiko.acc.umu.se">http://lists.debian.org/20120507201039.GD10339@suiko.acc.umu.se
05-08-2012, 02:41 AM
Ben Finney
Node.js and it's future in debian
David Weinehall <tao@debian.org> writes:
> Wasn't the main reason (apart from the seniority argument) for
> preserving the node name for ax25 to prevent remote unmonitored highly
> important systems from failing?
If such systems are highly important, should we accomodate them
remaining unmonitored?
Surely if they are unmonitored, then they are not considered
sufficiently important to monitor. So “highly important†ceases to carry
any weight in such cases. No?
--
“The generation of random numbers is too important to be left |
` to chance.†—Robert R. Coveyou |
_o__) |
Ben Finney
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 87k40n75sr.fsf@benfinney.id.au">http://lists.debian.org/87k40n75sr.fsf@benfinney.id.au
>> Package: node
>> Depends: ax25-node
>> Conflicts: nodejs
>> -- /usr/sbin/node -> /usr/sbin/ax25-node
>>
>> Package: ax25-node
>> -- /usr/sbin/ax25-node
>>
>> Package: nodejs
>> Conflicts: node
>> -- /usr/bin/nodejs
>> -- /usr/bin/node -> /usr/bin/nodejs
>>
>> > So this would need package replacement, which is a pain, and an
>> > exception for a policy violation -- is that enough to kill the idea?
>>
>> I think it's an acceptable compromise under the circumstances.
> This seems a little one-sided, as it inflicts the bulk of the work on
> those that are less to blame.
I don't see the point to perfect symmetry: nodejs contains an
interpreter while ax25-node contains a daemon and will work out of the
box for most people (those that don't need custom scripts).
My point is that nodejs without /usr/bin/node is useless.
> It also prevents a HAM from deciding to dabble in Node.js while
> preserving the 'node' name for their ax25 use.
But one additional package for people we are not even sure they exist...
> I don't really see the point of adding the symlink to nodejs if you're
> not putting it in a separate package -- one of the reasons I had for
> doing that split was that it might allow us to later provide popcon
> stats of the proportion's of node.js users that install the symlink
> package as part of evidence to persuade upstream that it might be worth
> entertaining a better binary name -- having them both in the same
> package discards that information.
I doubt that upstream will rename anything after years of use. Upstream
also has a community to please. And popcon may just be an indication on
the number of our users that are pissed enough to install from source
because installing "nodejs" package did not deliver the right command.
--
Vincent Bernat ☯ http://vincent.bernat.im
On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 12:41:40PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
>
> David Weinehall <tao@debian.org> writes:
>
> > Wasn't the main reason (apart from the seniority argument) for
> > preserving the node name for ax25 to prevent remote unmonitored highly
> > important systems from failing?
>
> If such systems are highly important, should we accomodate them
> remaining unmonitored?
>
> Surely if they are unmonitored, then they are not considered
> sufficiently important to monitor. So “highly important†ceases to carry
> any weight in such cases. No?
>
The systems are not "unmonitored" they are physically difficult to access.
One of the tools used to monitor them is connecting to them with the node
application.
Pat
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20120508160953.GB28797@flying-gecko.net">http://lists.debian.org/20120508160953.GB28797@flying-gecko.net
Node.js and it's future in debian
