Carsten Hey wrote:

> I don't think that there ever will be a consensus in all those
> discussions without discussing in a reasonable way (which failed in the
> past multiple times).

Note that a consensus does not imply everyone agreeing. I am starting
to see a consensus already and would welcome well reasoned opinions
and clarifications that show where my understanding is lacking.

By the way, separate from what happens to the "node" command are a few
other questions:

- Can we come up with alternate names for both commands, so while
Debian users might be using the "node" command, Debian packages do
not need to?

(Among other benefits, this would simplify upgrades for people who
have /usr/sbin too early in $PATH.)

I think on the Node.js side this is basically a solved problem,
though help with the actual coding would be welcome. (E.g., I have
a patch against upstream 0.7.y that does the right thing, but 0.7.y
is not packaged for experimental yet. Feel free to contact me or
nodejs@packages.debian.org if you have time to help.)

There is a patch taking the first step in this direction for the
LinuxNode package at <http://bugs.debian.org/614907> but no
maintainer has weighed in since then, except to note on
debian-devel@ that they are having trouble finding someone to test
the patch.

- Is the "node" package undermaintained? Should it be orphaned to
encourage active users to take on the burden of its maintenance
without worrying about stepping on people's toes?

Thanks,
Jonathan


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20120501175747.GA31508@burratino">http://lists.debian.org/20120501175747.GA31508@burratino

* Jonathan Nieder [2012-05-01 12:57 -0500]:
> Carsten Hey wrote:
>
> > I don't think that there ever will be a consensus in all those
> > discussions without discussing in a reasonable way (which failed in the
> > past multiple times).
>
> Note that a consensus does not imply everyone agreeing.

I was talking about a consensus among the maintainers of the affected
packages. Even if all but the maintainers of one of the affected
packages would agree to a solution, there would be no way to implement
this solution without asking the tech-ctte or (what would be not
appropriate for this) a GR.

> I am starting
> to see a consensus already and would welcome well reasoned opinions
> and clarifications that show where my understanding is lacking.
>
> By the way, separate from what happens to the "node" command are a few
> other questions:
>
> - Can we come up with alternate names for both commands, so while
> Debian users might be using the "node" command, Debian packages do
> not need to?

nodejs for node.js and ax25-node for the ham radio node. If ax25-node
is not appropriate, then one of the debian-hams can suggest something
more appropriate.

> I think on the Node.js side this is basically a solved problem,

I would consider a Linux distribution that uses /usr/bin/monty-python as
binary for the python language to be utterly broken. Users of it would
not be able to run any python script without adapting its shebang. Even
making /usr/bin/python a symlink that can be changed between a game and
the language would not make the situation any better, since users that
do not want to change the shebang line would need to check if the
symlink is set to the language on every box they want to run a python
script on.

node.js might not be that widespread in use as python, but shipping
a node.js with /usr/bin/nodejs seems to be broken in a similar way as
the above example.

Anyway, if the nodejs maintainers would be happy with a hack that
involves changing /usr/bin/node to /usr/bin/nodejs, then there is not
much we could do about this as it's their package.

> - Is the "node" package undermaintained? Should it be orphaned to
> encourage active users to take on the burden of its maintenance
> without worrying about stepping on people's toes?

If it would be orphaned, then the problem could be solved easily by
a QA-upload.

It was maintained in a great way until the one that did the last upload
retired from maintaining it in 2009. I'd assume that a FTBFS bug or
a missing dependency would be solved by the remaining uploaders quickly
(as it happened in 2005 once) and the packages does not require much
attention in general. I don't think it is orphaned, but I also wouldn't
consider it to be well maintained either.


Carsten


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20120501192020.GD17599@furrball.stateful.de">http://lists.debian.org/20120501192020.GD17599@furrball.stateful.de

Carsten Hey wrote:

> I was talking about a consensus among the maintainers of the affected
> packages. Even if all but the maintainers of one of the affected
> packages would agree to a solution, there would be no way to implement
> this solution without asking the tech-ctte or (what would be not
> appropriate for this) a GR.

Wait, really? What happened to respect by maintainers for the
project? What happened to NMUs when a maintainer is stalling work?

[...]
> node.js might not be that widespread in use as python, but shipping
> a node.js with /usr/bin/nodejs seems to be broken in a similar way as
> the above example.

I would agree with you if we were proposing going forward against
upstream's wishes. But I was not proposing that --- we don't know
upstream's wishes yet, but I was going to send a patch once we know
it works. Sorry for the lack of clarity.

This kind of thing has precedent. For example, there is gmake and
there are commands like axlisten.

Hoping that clarifies a little,
Jonathan


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20120501203050.GA32510@burratino">http://lists.debian.org/20120501203050.GA32510@burratino

On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 03:31:02AM +0200, Carl Fürstenberg wrote:
>
> There has been an log struggle between the nodejs package and the node
> package, which is still unresolved (bug #611698 for example) And I
> wonder now what the future should look like.
>
> To summarize the problem:
> * the nodejs upstream binary is called "node", and the upstream
> developers have refused to change it's binary name to nodejs for
> debian;
> * The the hamradio package "node" shipping a binary called "node", and
> as it's so old, the developers argue that the package must ship a
> binary called "node" or breakage will occur.
> * The reason the nodejs developers want to ship the binary as "node"
> is because all programs written for nodejs all has /usr/bin/node in
> it's shebang
> * the nodejs package are not allowed to conflict on the node package
> just because the binary name is the same
>
> As I'm not a hamradio user, I'm off course biased towards letting
> nodejs having the "node" binary and let it pass to testing. But we
> must find a solution to this, as nodejs is getting more and more used,
> and developers are forced to install nodejs from source to be able to
> use it instead of install it via the package manager.
>

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.

Pat
--
,-----------------------------------------------------------------------------.
> Patrick Ouellette | Start by doing what's necessary; then do <
> pat(at)flying-gecko.net | what's possible; and suddenly you are doing <
> Amateur Radio: NE4PO | the impossible. -- Francis of Assisi <
`-----------------------------------------------------------------------------'


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20120501205524.GI30521@flying-gecko.net">http://lists.debian.org/20120501205524.GI30521@flying-gecko.net

On Tue, May 01, 2012 at 03:30:50PM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> > I was talking about a consensus among the maintainers of the affected
> > packages. Even if all but the maintainers of one of the affected
> > packages would agree to a solution, there would be no way to implement
> > this solution without asking the tech-ctte or (what would be not
> > appropriate for this) a GR.

> Wait, really? What happened to respect by maintainers for the
> project?

"The project" is not "a set of random maintainers who have a filename
conflict with you". We have a constitution to *prevent* such decisions
being made by a tyranny of the majority of the minority.

> What happened to NMUs when a maintainer is stalling work?

NMUs are *not* a tool for forcing a maintainer to accept a technical outcome
he disagrees with. It's demotivating enough to be overridden, without it
coming in the form of a fellow developer taking matters into his own hands.

--
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 Developer http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20120501205624.GC5608@virgil.dodds.net">http://lists.debian.org/20120501205624.GC5608@virgil.dodds.net

On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 08:26:47PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> > Contrast that with the positive actitude of the NFS developers of CITI
> > at UMichi when heimdal-dev and libgssapi-dev both contained
> > /usr/lib/libgssapi.a [1]. They went to the trouble of renaming libgssapi
> > to libgssglue.
>
> Indeed, and I'm very grateful for that. But realistically that was also a
> lot easier than renaming Node.js's interpreter, and I think the CITI folks
> did actually know that was coming. The conflict had already been pointed
> out in the Kerberos community and had been discussed prior to it coming up
> here. But more significantly that library was essentially used only by
> NFS, so only a few clients had to change and the renaming was fairly
> straightforward.

The Node.js developer KNEW there were other binaries named node, and just
went on as if it did not matter. Check the development history/blog.

>
> Node.js is at this point another matter; it's the topic of books,
> widespread use independent of the upstream developers, and lots of
> articles and Internet documentation with a life of its own. A quick
> Google search comes up with tons of indepedent sites telling people to run
> programs with "node <script-name>". That makes renaming a much more
> difficult prospect.

And the ham radio binary is the subject of sections of how-to's and books
on amateur radio. It also has "a life of it's own" in the ham radio
community.

If a binary's name is simply a matter of a popularity contest in Debian,
at some point every name may be made to change.

--
,-----------------------------------------------------------------------------.
> Patrick Ouellette | It is in pardoning that we are pardoned. <
> pat(at)flying-gecko.net | -- Francis of Assisi <
> Amateur Radio: NE4PO | <
`-----------------------------------------------------------------------------'


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20120501211011.GJ30521@flying-gecko.net">http://lists.debian.org/20120501211011.GJ30521@flying-gecko.net

On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 08:39:41PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Node.js is becoming quite popular and is known generally to use "node"
> in its hash-bang.

Seriously? People are writing scripts that start
#!node

That is truely messed up!

Pat

--
,-----------------------------------------------------------------------------.
> Patrick Ouellette | Lord, grant that I might not so much seek <
> pat(at)flying-gecko.net | to be loved as to love. <
> Amateur Radio: NE4PO | -- Francis of Assisi <
`-----------------------------------------------------------------------------'


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20120501211803.GK30521@flying-gecko.net">http://lists.debian.org/20120501211803.GK30521@flying-gecko.net

Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, May 01, 2012 at 03:30:50PM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:

>> Wait, really? What happened to respect by maintainers for the
>> project?
>
> "The project" is not "a set of random maintainers who have a filename
> conflict with you".

Sorry, I don't understand the above sentence. Do you mean that it is
impossible to come to a consensus when one maintainer of a relevant
package disagrees? I can understand that claim, but it doesn't seem
to be the same as the sentence above.

> We have a constitution to *prevent* such decisions
> being made by a tyranny of the majority of the minority.

Thanks, that perhaps suggests a method for resolving this. Could you
point to the section of the constitution you are referring to?

> NMUs are *not* a tool for forcing a maintainer to accept a technical outcome
> he disagrees with.

Sure. To be clear, I should say that I am not advocating that anyone
NMU the node or nodejs package. What I meant (and I could easily be
wrong) is that when the maintainer of a package is not working on an
important bug and has not given any reason, Debian does not need to be
held hostage by that.

Jonathan


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20120501213249.GB1044@burratino">http://lists.debian.org/20120501213249.GB1044@burratino

On Tue, May 01, 2012 at 01:07:11AM +0200, Carsten Hey wrote:
> Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 01:07:11 +0200
> From: Carsten Hey <carsten@debian.org>
> Subject: Re: Node.js and it's future in debian
> To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
> Mail-Followup-To: Carsten Hey <carsten@debian.org>,
> debian-devel@lists.debian.org
>
> * Carl Fürstenberg [2012-04-28 03:31 +0200]:
> > There has been an log struggle between the nodejs package and the node
> > package, which is still unresolved (bug #611698 for example) And I
> > wonder now what the future should look like.
>
> In short I think that there is only one sane solution to this and that
> the way to reach this solution is to ask the tech-ctte for a decision.
>
>
> This is the second thread about this topic on -devel, the first one was
> in November 2011. In both threads and in some smaller ones, people
> basically claimed things like (incomplete list):

It is at least the third discussion that I can remember.

> Given that node is a rarely used daemon and that nodejs is a widely used
> language, I think that nodejs should get the binary name node; but due
> to the non-responsiveness of node's maintainers I think this might be
> a case where involving the tech-ctte would help.
>
> node's maintainers don't participate in such discussions in a reasonable
> and timely manner, for example the RC bug had no action for months
> despite the patch and nobody ever explained what exactly the problem of
> a changed binary name for a daemon would be (node can be used
> interactively, but it is not supposed to be used that way and those
> users that do would be able to set up an alias anyway). The first
> answer from one of the uploaders was sent nearly a year after nodesjs'
> maintainer asked about this issue on the maintainer's list (back then he
> didn't seem to notice that those who answered were unrelated to the node
> package). The subject of the -devel thread last year "Is anyone
> maintaining (the ham radio tool) node?" speaks for itself.

So expel all the maintainers for having a real life and not living and
breathing only the Debian project and it's fire hose like mailing lists.

If timeliness is an issue, email the maintainer(s) directly. No other
package is subverted because of slowness to address a bug (the exception
being NMU uploads, which I would not class as subverting the package).
Packages are dropped from the release for RC bugs.

A package that has been in Debian for YEARS should not expect a RC
bug to be filed on the basis on a name space collision. (Otherwise
look out for your favorite executable, because someone WILL name the
"next new thing" with the same name.)

As was put forth in the "Is anyone maintaining" thread, node is a fairly
mature piece of code that has been working without major upstream changes
because it does the job it was written to do.

>
> I assume all of node's uploaders did great work on many ham related
> packages, but all that the two uploaders that replied to this issue
> during the last two years did related to the node package is that they
> also replied to the "Call for debian hamradio developers pool" from
> node's actual but now retired maintainer who then added them as
> uploaders. Only Hamish, who did not respond to this issue, uploaded
> node once in 2005, the others did never do any upload. The responses
> from the other two uploaders were essentially "please report a bug"
> (although this was already done) by one; and "... then no package should
> get the name" and in one mail "this patch needs to be tested by someone
> who runs node and nodejs" by the other.
>

There hasn't been any upstream changes in node for a long time. The package
builds fine in the auto-builders and does what it was designed to do.

The number of active ham radio maintainers has varied over time, just like
other packages. Right now there are only a few, and most of us are busy
(just like everyone else).

--
,-----------------------------------------------------------------------------.
> Patrick Ouellette | It is not fitting, when one is in God's service, <
> pat(at)flying-gecko.net | to have a gloomy face or a chilling look. <
> Amateur Radio: NE4PO | -- Francis of Assisi <
`-----------------------------------------------------------------------------'


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20120501213654.GL30521@flying-gecko.net">http://lists.debian.org/20120501213654.GL30521@flying-gecko.net

[Dropped Cc; what does any of this have to do with the DPL?]

On Tue, May 01, 2012 at 04:32:49PM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Tue, May 01, 2012 at 03:30:50PM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:

> >> Wait, really? What happened to respect by maintainers for the
> >> project?

> > "The project" is not "a set of random maintainers who have a filename
> > conflict with you".

> Sorry, I don't understand the above sentence. Do you mean that it is
> impossible to come to a consensus when one maintainer of a relevant
> package disagrees? I can understand that claim, but it doesn't seem
> to be the same as the sentence above.

I mean that it is not reasonable to expect a maintainer to recognize a
"consensus" among other people who are not the maintainer, where his or her
package is concerned, except when that's a consensus of a
constitutionally-empowered body such as the TC.

> > We have a constitution to *prevent* such decisions
> > being made by a tyranny of the majority of the minority.

> Thanks, that perhaps suggests a method for resolving this. Could you
> point to the section of the constitution you are referring to?

I am bewildered that I should need to point this out:

6. Technical committee

6.1. Powers

The Technical Committee may:

[...]

2. Decide any technical matter where Developers' jurisdictions overlap.

In cases where Developers need to implement compatible technical
policies or stances (for example, if they disagree about the priorities
of conflicting packages, or about ownership of a command name, or about
which package is responsible for a bug that both maintainers agree is a
bug, or about who should be the maintainer for a package) the technical
committee may decide the matter.

As you seem to be involved with various process discussions within Debian,
may I gently suggest that you familiarize yourself with our governing
document?

> > NMUs are *not* a tool for forcing a maintainer to accept a technical
> > outcome he disagrees with.

> Sure. To be clear, I should say that I am not advocating that anyone
> NMU the node or nodejs package. What I meant (and I could easily be
> wrong) is that when the maintainer of a package is not working on an
> important bug and has not given any reason, Debian does not need to be
> held hostage by that.

Ok - sorry, that's not what came across in your message, it's possible I
overlooked some context up-thread that would have made this clear. Yes, a
bug that's been filed against the package and gone unanswered by the
maintainer is fair game for NMUing. OTOH, a bug that the maintainer
disagrees is a bug would not be fair game.

--
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 Developer http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20120501220033.GD5608@virgil.dodds.net">http://lists.debian.org/20120501220033.GD5608@virgil.dodds.net