Is anyone maintaining (the ham radio tool) node?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
48 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Is anyone maintaining (the ham radio tool) node?

Jonathan Nieder
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 [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20111106072651.GA31593@...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Is anyone maintaining (the ham radio tool) node?

Patrick Ouellette
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                 [hidden email]
ne4po (at) arrl (dot) net         Amateur Radio: NE4PO

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

signature.asc (853 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Is anyone maintaining (the ham radio tool) node?

Jonathan Nieder
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 [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20111107032031.GA25810@...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Is anyone maintaining (the ham radio tool) node?

Patrick Ouellette-2
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                 [hidden email]
ne4po (at) arrl (dot) net         Amateur Radio: NE4PO

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


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20111107034509.GC16217@...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Is anyone maintaining (the ham radio tool) node?

Jonathan Nieder
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 [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20111107053255.GC25810@...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Is anyone maintaining (the ham radio tool) node?

Jonathan Nieder
(+cc: [hidden email].  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 [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20111107055326.GD25810@...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Is anyone maintaining (the ham radio tool) node?

Ian Jackson-2
In reply to this post by Jonathan Nieder
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 [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20151.57412.130027.129313@...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Is anyone maintaining (the ham radio tool) node?

Damien Gardner Jnr
In reply to this post by Jonathan Nieder
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
[hidden email] -  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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Resolve namce conflise with node and nodejs [was Re: Is anyone maintaining (the ham radio tool) node?]

Patrick Ouellette
In reply to this post by Ian Jackson-2
Where is the voice of the nodejs maintainers in this?  They are
listed as:

Debian Javascript Maintainers
Jérémy Lal
Dave Beckett
Jonas Smedegaard


--

Patrick Ouellette                 [hidden email]
ne4po (at) arrl (dot) net         Amateur Radio: NE4PO

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

signature.asc (205 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Is anyone maintaining (the ham radio tool) node?

Patrick Ouellette-2
In reply to this post by Damien Gardner Jnr
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                 [hidden email]
ne4po (at) arrl (dot) net         Amateur Radio: NE4PO

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


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20111108194814.GD30829@...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Resolve namce conflise with node and nodejs [was Re: Is anyone maintaining (the ham radio tool) node?]

Jonas Smedegaard
In reply to this post by Patrick Ouellette
On 11-11-08 at 02:34pm, Patrick Ouellette wrote:
> Where is the voice of the nodejs maintainers in this?

For my own part, I am following the thread, quite happy to hear the
voice of the (ham) node maintainers, but wondering what is so precious
about keeping the name of its binary.

Form my understanding it is a daemon, which (again from my limited
understanding) means normally only sysV scripts should need to know the
actual name of that binary, not all sorts of locally written scripts.

As has already been pointed out (but not commented on, as far as I have
noticed) the nodejs binary is an interpreter as thus normally used
directly in all user scripts in their hash-bang.


 - Jonas

--
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

signature.asc (853 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Is anyone maintaining (the ham radio tool) node?

Philipp Kern-4
In reply to this post by Patrick Ouellette-2
On 2011-11-08, Patrick Ouellette <[hidden email]> 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 [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/slrnjbken2.3js.trash@...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Is anyone maintaining (the ham radio tool) node?

Patrick Ouellette-2
On Wed, Nov 09, 2011 at 08:33:38AM +0000, Philipp Kern wrote:
>
> On 2011-11-08, Patrick Ouellette <[hidden email]> 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.

I don't know that his patch will or will not work.  It needs to be tested
by someone who uses the package(s) in question.  He stated he uses neither
the ham radio node nor nodejs.

I note he provided a patch to the ham radio package, but not to the nodejs
package.  I also note the nodejs maintainers were working on a solution
(last updated in February).

http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=611698

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

I don't think the packagers are in a position to answer this for any particular
installation.  The end user can create any manner of linkage to any package's
binaries.  Certainly we can control what packages require specific binaries
on a system, but we can not control the user.  

In this particular case, the postinst for node calls update-inetd to add an
entry for node.  And marks it as disabled. This is easy enough to change to
a different binary name.  


> 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.
>

Provided the programs are being called with complete path names this is true.
If the user is just calling "node" then it depends on the ordering of the
search path.  I'm pretty sure this is something most people want to avoid

> 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.
>

Jonathan invoked policy as a reason to change the names, then claimed he
wanted node.js to retain the binary name node.  You can't have it both ways
in the absence of consensus.  It appears not enough people in the project care
about either package to reach a consensus.

Earlier when this particular situation was being discussed, someone mentioned
the generic name "node" was bad for a computer binary.  10-15 years ago it
was a different landscape.  The node.js folks should probably have given
more thought to their binary's name given the nature of the computer software
landscape at the time they created their program.  I can see the logic in
this argument, and so can support changing *both* binaries.

I recall this situation earlier for the axlisten binary.  Back when I was
maintaining the ax25-* packages alone, someone complained that listen
conflicted with their audio player (I think) with the same binary name.  I
argued for the ax25-* package and prevailed.  A couple of years later after
I was no longer maintaining the ax25-* packages someone complained again
and the maintainer for the ax25-* packages decided to change the name to
axlisten.


Thanks for your questions and input!

Pat
--

Patrick Ouellette                 [hidden email]
ne4po (at) arrl (dot) net         Amateur Radio: NE4PO

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


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20111109151610.GA23730@...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Is anyone maintaining (the ham radio tool) node?

Bob Proulx
Patrick Ouellette wrote:
> Earlier when this particular situation was being discussed, someone mentioned
> the generic name "node" was bad for a computer binary.  10-15 years ago it
> was a different landscape.  The node.js folks should probably have given
> more thought to their binary's name given the nature of the computer software
> landscape at the time they created their program.  I can see the logic in
> this argument, and so can support changing *both* binaries.

I think this discussion illustrates why simple non-specific names are
poor choices for both packages and for programs.  Even 10-15 years ago
"node" was already a fairly generic term.  I don't think either
package is completely free of guilt.  Not changing the name now just
pushes the problem further into the future for when there is another
different conflict over that name later.  Or simply pick one to
grandfather in as having been there first.  I think either are
defensible decisions.  It is unfortunate that even when names are
relatively unusual and unique that conflicts sometimes appear anyway.
Such as happened with "git".

Is there a blacklist of names that have previously conflicted and so
have been renamed?  Otherwise, assuming a renaming happens, is there
anything to prevent a new ITP some time in the future from stepping
into the previously conflicted name?  That would be a tragedy for both
of the current packages.

> I recall this situation earlier for the axlisten binary.  Back when I was
> maintaining the ax25-* packages alone, someone complained that listen
> conflicted with their audio player (I think) with the same binary name.  I
> ...

There are many poor names.  Some like cut and paste have been around
for so long and are so well known that they are not really a problem.
But some are new and just seem like trouble such as "play", and
apparently "listen" and also "open" also comes to mind.  But neither
would I want all programs to be named in such a unique fashion that I
would have to type in "some-specific-name-to-some-program" either.
The balance in the middle isn't trivial.

Bob
cul es 73 de kf0uw

signature.asc (205 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Is anyone maintaining (the ham radio tool) node?

Vincent Bernat-3
In reply to this post by Ian Jackson-2
OoO En  ce début  d'après-midi nuageux du  lundi 07 novembre  2011, vers
14:42, Ian Jackson <[hidden email]> 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.

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".

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. 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.

Patrick  seems OK  for both  binaries  to be  renamed. I  don't see  the
rationale of not accepting that node.js keeps the "node" name.
--
Vincent Bernat ☯ http://vincent.bernat.im

Modularise.  Use subroutines.
            - The Elements of Programming Style (Kernighan & Plauger)

attachment0 (203 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Is anyone maintaining (the ham radio tool) node?

Cyril Brulebois-4
Vincent Bernat <[hidden email]> (14/11/2011):
> 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. 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.

Oh noes!!!!1111oneoneoneeleven

Mraw,
KiBi.

signature.asc (205 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Is anyone maintaining (the ham radio tool) node?

Jonathan Nieder
Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Vincent Bernat <[hidden email]> (14/11/2011):

>> 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. 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.
>
> Oh noes!!!!1111oneoneoneeleven

Or to put it another way, one could kindly explain to such people that

 (1) the node.js packaging in unstable or experimental is reasonably up to
     date (if that is true --- I just don't know, but it presumably could
     be easily could be made to be so if someone wants to do that)

 (2) faced with a diverse userbase that was using the "node" command for
     two different purposes, Debian is doing the only thing it can do to
     make scripts reliable: rename both.  As a nice side-effect, we get a
     simple, Google-able name for the tool.  People unhappy with the
     divergence from upstream can do one of two things:

     (a) install a /usr/local/bin/node -> ../../bin/nodejs symlink locally,
         by running the following handy install-nodejs-symlink script

     (b) work with upstream to provide the interpreter under both names,
         so scripts can use "#!/usr/bin/env nodejs" to be self-documenting
         and work reliably everywhere

(By the way, most of the description under (2) might apply to the ham
radio tool, too.  In other words, none of this seems particularly unique
to interpreted languages.)


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20111114214013.GA3268@...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Two groups of users, one distro in the middle

Alex Pennace
In reply to this post by Vincent Bernat-3
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 <[hidden email]> 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 [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20111114224322.GA3889@...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Two groups of users, one distro in the middle

Jonathan Nieder
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 [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20111114235008.GA5190@...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Two groups of users, one distro in the middle

Alex Pennace
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 [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20111115001402.GB3889@...

123