From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jonathan Nieder Subject: Re: Node.js and it's future in debian Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 13:51:29 -0500 Message-ID: <20120503185129.GA18768@burratino> References: <20120501205524.GI30521@flying-gecko.net> <20120501215305.GA1250@burratino> <20120501221659.GA11430@flying-gecko.net> <20120502065003.GB2410@burratino> <20120502165031.GC7390@flying-gecko.net> <20120502171349.GA23806@burratino> <20120502200426.GF7390@flying-gecko.net> <4FA2A557.1080103@trinnet.net> <20120503170521.GD19468@flying-gecko.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=7QviDQqdLnr5LsP6msKI0yFPhE4jQH12k5mrWcACKvE=; b=oLHLSFJFYrGnH0D9NvvOYrrfrpeKFIaWUUMsESJs9xu7QHqCpDsrqzS9DfJWLNCgVo fMOep0wBGLeY4eACFYNM3IOKYfz2qS7jQCQ4UWtffSb2nc5RNtbjl8R5qUevGUPRrGx/ 4CuaiG6DI6lEEuR/ojpHI0zkcUjwz6MQGrSvBwmSJ1CkRKsWuZ5g+qsM+uVpjIy3JXtz to2vALNycigsqk/vLuqVPEDNJiQ0xKNAykr0mOoTJHfuml6EJ+7bss6y/QFXjJOqsOxI 3QTlIPlNVdNniS1R+Pc5NVAGZ0C17PphRbuxdQ1Hc13AEhHp45R1KObCkSQhw00Wa3x0 VsxQ== Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120503170521.GD19468@flying-gecko.net> Sender: linux-hams-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Patrick Ouellette Cc: David Ranch , node@packages.debian.org, nodejs@packages.debian.org, debian-hams@lists.debian.org, linux-hams@vger.kernel.org Hi again, Patrick Ouellette wrote: > I completely agree, but apparently Node.js' upstream has changed the name > once previously (apparently from a similar problem) and while acknowledging > the name is generic and a poor choice refuses to consider another change. > (According to what I can tell from the Debian discussion. I have not > talked to Node.js upstream personally.) The working title of Node.js was "server" for a few weeks, before anyone was using it. When I looked that up in order to understand what the name "node" was about (in the spirit of [1]) I mentioned this factoid without making the context sufficiently clear, and I'm sorry about that[2]. To avoid banging heads against the wall too quickly: I think there are two aspects that it would be productive to discuss: 1. Which package should use the name "node" in the long term? What can we do to ensure that happens eventually? (My answer is that I hope that neither uses the name "node" in the long term.) 2. What should be the state in Debian's upcoming "wheezy" release to provide a smooth upgrade path and not surprise users too much? (My answer is that configuration needs to be smoothly migrated: - ax25d.conf by the ax25-tools package - inetd configuration by the node package - other configuration by the sysadmin, after they are notified through a note in node's NEWS.Debian file (shown by apt-listchanges) and the release notes I also would hope that wheezy can include a /usr/sbin/node file that prints a message to help people notice they are still using it and calls /usr/sbin/axnode, but that is still under discussion. Likewise, the Node.js needs some migration to ensure scripts installed by Debian packages and from outside use the new name. I would hope that wheezy can include a /usr/bin/node synonym for compatibility until usage of it fades away, but that is still under discussion.) If you disagree with the long-term goal or have ideas for a smoother migration, that could be useful. Hope that helps, Jonathan [1] http://wiki.debian.org/WhyTheName [2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2011/11/msg00377.html