Re: Node.js and it's future in debian

Quoting Patrick Ouellette (poue...@debian.org): > Can someone please explain to be why it is so unpalatable to > have the Node.js package in the README and in an installation/ > configuration message include the following (or similar) message: ("last minute debconf addition hater" hat ON) Please

Re: Node.js and it's future in debian

On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 05:28:29PM -0400, Patrick Ouellette wrote: > On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 05:13:09PM -0400, Chris Knadle wrote: > > > > Drat. I forgot about APRS. APRS has become fairly popular among hams, so > > much > > so that it now comes built-in to several radios, and even HTs > > (Ha

Work-needing packages report for May 4, 2012

The following is a listing of packages for which help has been requested through the WNPP (Work-Needing and Prospective Packages) system in the last week. Total number of orphaned packages: 407 (new: 4) Total number of packages offered up for adoption: 167 (new: 3) Total number of packages request

Re: RFC: OpenRC as Init System for Debian

On 05/04/12 01:58, David Weinehall wrote: > On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 08:54:11AM +0800, Patrick Lauer wrote: >> On 05/03/12 02:16, Michael Biebl wrote: >>> On 02.05.2012 19:05, Martin Wuertele wrote: I don't think this is a better example. Actually I think this is an example where udev/mdev

Re: switching from exim to postfix

On 02/05/12 02:00, brian m. carlson wrote: > On Tue, May 01, 2012 at 07:47:08PM +0100, Roger Lynn wrote: >> I have enabled accept_8bitmime in every exim I've installed for the last >> 10 years and no one has reported any problems. I think the risk of >> encountering a truly 7 bit MTA in this decade

Re: Fwd: Re: Bug#614907: nodejs/node command conflict: why can't we have both?

* Don Armstrong [2012-05-03 16:08 -0700]: > On Fri, 04 May 2012, Carsten Hey wrote: > > Should not at least @debian.org addresses by default be whitelisted > > on the tech-ctte list? > > Sign your e-mail if you want it to go through or subscribe or send the > mail through the BTS. The need to sign

Re: Fwd: Re: Bug#614907: nodejs/node command conflict: why can't we have both?

On Fri, 04 May 2012, Carsten Hey wrote: > Should not at least @debian.org addresses by default be whitelisted > on the tech-ctte list? Sign your e-mail if you want it to go through or subscribe or send the mail through the BTS. Don Armstrong (with ring of listmaster@) -- I don't care how poor

Re: Node.js and it's future in debian

On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 04:46:09PM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote: > Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 16:46:09 -0500 > From: Peter Samuelson > Subject: Re: Node.js and it's future in debian > To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, Patrick Ouellette , > Andrew Starr-Bochicchio > > > [David Weinehall] > > So...

Fwd: Re: Bug#614907: nodejs/node command conflict: why can't we have both?

Should not at least @debian.org addresses by default be whitelisted on the tech-ctte list? - Forwarded message from debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org - Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 22:33:51 + (UTC) From: debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org To: cars...@debian.org Subject: Re: Re: Bug#61

Re: smaller than 0 but not negative (Re: question about "Conflicts:"

[Patrick Lauer] > 1.0_pre20120503 maybe That'd be wrong if you expect a real _alpha, _beta or _pre of the given version in the future. I think in that case you'd need something like 1.0_alpha_alpha20120503 or 1.0_alpha_pre20120503. There's something to be said for imposed structure, but in this

Re: Node.js and it's future in debian

On Thursday, May 03, 2012 17:28:29, Patrick Ouellette wrote: > On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 05:13:09PM -0400, Chris Knadle wrote: > > Drat. I forgot about APRS. APRS has become fairly popular among hams, so > > much so that it now comes built-in to several radios, and even HTs > > (Handy-Talkies). > >

Re: Node.js and it's future in debian

[David Weinehall] > So... A (admittedly expensive) pre-inst script that checks the > system for calls to /usr/sbin/node outside of Debian packages would > likely do the trick? That seems like a pretty big violation of the spirit, and possibly the letter, of Debian Policy. I mean, why not just t

Re: Node.js and it's future in debian

On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 05:13:09PM -0400, Chris Knadle wrote: > > Drat. I forgot about APRS. APRS has become fairly popular among hams, so > much > so that it now comes built-in to several radios, and even HTs (Handy-Talkies). > > APRS is a system for location reporting. It's also very common

Re: Node.js and it's future in debian

On Thursday, May 03, 2012 16:32:08, Patrick Ouellette wrote: > On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 09:21:16PM +0100, Colin Tuckley wrote: ... > > What you are also ignoring here is that AX25 packet is pretty much dead > > in Ham radio. > > No, I am not ignoring the ax25 packet status in ham radio. When I pos

Re: Node.js and it's future in debian

On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 03:34:59PM -0400, Patrick Ouellette wrote: > On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 03:09:42PM -0400, Andrew Starr-Bochicchio wrote: > > > > It has been said many times that the impact on users will be limited > > as node is not meant to be called directly but by inetd. You and other > >

Re: Node.js and it's future in debian

On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 03:09:42PM -0400, Andrew Starr-Bochicchio wrote: > > It has been said many times that the impact on users will be limited > as node is not meant to be called directly but by inetd. You and other > members of the ham radio community seem to feel that there would be an > impa

Re: Node.js and it's future in debian

On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 09:21:16PM +0100, Colin Tuckley wrote: > Date: Thu, 03 May 2012 21:21:16 +0100 > From: Colin Tuckley > Subject: Re: Node.js and it's future in debian > To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org > > On 03/05/12 20:44, Patrick Ouellette wrote: > > > With all due respect, you can m

Re: Node.js and it's future in debian

On 03/05/12 20:44, Patrick Ouellette wrote: > With all due respect, you can make the same argument for the Node.js > package to do this. Node.js is not currently in the stable distribution > while node is (apparently this does not have any bearing on the discussion). node might be in stable but

Re: Node.js and it's future in debian

On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 10:11:41PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > > You also don't address the issue of a user who installs both packages > > and now gets varying behavior depending on their $PATH - a result not > > of a local administrator's action, but of the Debian package's actions. > > If

Re: Node.js and it's future in debian

On Thu, 03 May 2012, Patrick Ouellette wrote: > With all due respect, you can make the same argument for the Node.js > package to do this. Yes, but it would not be a transitional backward-compatibility symlink. It would be a symlink that would have to remain forever and that is required even for n

Circular Build Dependencies (was Bug#671302: libav: circular dependency between libav and opencv)

On May 3, 2012 10:20 AM, "Andres Mejia" wrote: > > On May 3, 2012 9:30 AM, "Pino Toscano" wrote: > > > > Alle giovedì 3 maggio 2012, Andres Mejia ha scritto: > > > On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 3:44 AM, Pino Toscano wrote: > > > > Package: libav > > > > Version: 6:0.8.1-7 > > > > Severity: important >

Re: Node.js and it's future in debian

On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 09:24:00PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > So to avoid disruptions, you rename the binary in the package and in the > "postinst configure " which is run during upgrade, you add a > symlink from /usr/sbin/node to ax25-node and you display a prominent > warning explaining t

Re: Node.js and it's future in debian

Can someone please explain to be why it is so unpalatable to have the Node.js package in the README and in an installation/ configuration message include the following (or similar) message: Node.js in Debian has the executable name /usr/bin/nodejs This is to solve a conflict with a package that st

Re: Node.js and it's future in debian

OoO En ce début de soirée du jeudi 03 mai 2012, vers 21:11, Patrick Ouellette disait : >> Yes, they are. But we need to find a solution that will work for almost >> every one and this solution seems to exist. >> > Can you please elaborate on the solution that seems to exist? All I have >

Re: smaller than 0 but not negative (Re: question about "Conflicts:"

]] Patrick Lauer > 1.0_pre20120503 maybe, but why package a snapshot like that when you can > just have a "live" packages that checks out and builds from git directly > ... (and have that updated whenever it tickles your fancy) A prerelease isn't a snapshot in my nomenclature. (As for the rest,

Re: Node.js and it's future in debian

Hi, On Thu, 03 May 2012, Patrick Ouellette wrote: > This is from the linux-hams list where I asked about changing the name of > node: > > "From my experience, many MANY Linux hams have customized scripts that > startup some very elaborate HAM systems. For many, these scripts > weren't written b

Re: Node.js and it's future in debian

On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 08:48:07PM +0200, Vincent Bernat wrote: > OoO Pendant le repas du jeudi 03 mai 2012, vers 19:35, Patrick Ouellette > disait : > > >> As said many times, node is an interpreter used in shebang. Using a > >> different name would just upset its user base. Debian will be seen,

Re: Node.js and it's future in debian

On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 2:26 PM, Patrick Ouellette wrote: > Please understand, it is not a "reluctance to undergo this transition." > I am being asked to make Debian incompatible with the previous 13 years > of functionality, and cause a significant impact on a user community. > This is not somethi

Re: Node.js and it's future in debian

OoO Pendant le repas du jeudi 03 mai 2012, vers 19:35, Patrick Ouellette disait : >> As said many times, node is an interpreter used in shebang. Using a >> different name would just upset its user base. Debian will be seen, >> again, as the one harming a community, like this may happen in the >>

Re: Node.js and it's future in debian

On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 02:35:06PM -0300, Fernando Lemos wrote: > > So while I don't think decisions shouldn't be taken based solely on > popcon stats, I think it would be silly to think that ham radio would > be more popular than node.js. I understand you're reluctant to undergo > this transition

Re: Node.js and it's future in debian

On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 12:35 PM, Patrick Ouellette wrote: > On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 01:10:24PM +0200, Vincent Bernat wrote: >> >> As said many times, node is an interpreter used in shebang. Using a >> different name would just upset its user base. Debian will be seen, >> again, as the one harming

Re: Node.js and it's future in debian

On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 7:40 PM, Russ Allbery wrote: > > The first part I shouldn't have said, since it's really a distraction. > I'm sorry about that. > > For the second, that's what the documentation of the binary says, as > previously posted to this thread.  Is that not the case? > > Relative nu

Bug#671385: ITP: omphalos -- Network enumeration and domination

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: nick black * Package name: omphalos Version : 0.99.0 Upstream Author : Nick Black * URL : http://dank.qemfd.net/dankwiki/index.php/Omphalos * License : GPL Programming Lang: C Description : Network enumeration an

Re: RFC: OpenRC as Init System for Debian

On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 08:54:11AM +0800, Patrick Lauer wrote: > On 05/03/12 02:16, Michael Biebl wrote: > > On 02.05.2012 19:05, Martin Wuertele wrote: > >> I don't think this is a better example. Actually I think this is an > >> example where udev/mdev could launch/stop bluetoothd. > > Long runni

Re: Node.js and it's future in debian

Patrick Ouellette writes: > On Tue, May 01, 2012 at 03:00:46PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: >> That community is much smaller, and the binary isn't invoked directly >> by users, which makes the impact fairly minimal in practice. > Can you support that assertion with data? The first part I shouldn

Re: switching from exim to postfix

Andreas Metzler wrote: > Russell Coker wrote: > [...] >> When you send 8 bit mail to a host that only supports 7 bit then it will be >> corrupted, usually without any notification of what happened - definitely >> silent corruption. > [...] > Have you really seen this happening in this century

Re: Node.js and it's future in debian

On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 01:10:24PM +0200, Vincent Bernat wrote: > > As said many times, node is an interpreter used in shebang. Using a > different name would just upset its user base. Debian will be seen, > again, as the one harming a community, like this may happen in the > Ruby community becaus

Re: Node.js and it's future in debian

Hi, On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Patrick Ouellette wrote: > I can find numbers of potential node users by examining the number of > active amateur radio licenses and make educated guesses as to how many > may be using the ham radio node software as either a user of the system > or a system pro

Re: Removing the MTA from the default install

Adam Borowski wrote: > On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 10:02:37AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > > Is this the right time to do it? > > No. Cron needs some way to report about its jobs, Cron came up in the previous discussion about this on -devel (which I'd started), so I fixed that. See the patches

Re: Node.js and it's future in debian

On Tue, May 01, 2012 at 03:00:46PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > > That community is much smaller, and the binary isn't invoked directly by > users, which makes the impact fairly minimal in practice. > Can you support that assertion with data? I'm not talking installed instances in Debian, but i

Re: Node.js and it's future in debian

On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 09:08:23AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > > Thomas Goirand writes: > > On 05/02/2012 06:00 AM, Russ Allbery wrote: > > >> and the binary isn't invoked directly by users > > > If the binary isn't invoked directly by the users, why do we have a > > problem? Why can't a patch

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Node.js and it's future in debian

Charles Plessy wrote: > If we would tolerate conflicts, we would not support the parallel use of some > of our packages, but there would be the benefit that the package dependancy > graph could be parsed to report clusters of mutually-incompatible packages. > Often, these incompatibilities will not

Re: smaller than 0 but not negative (Re: question about "Conflicts:"

Patrick Lauer writes: > On 05/04/12 00:14, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: >> So you don't support for instance 1.0~git20120503, then? (the git >> snapshot from today of what will become 1.0) > What a weird idea. > 1.0_pre20120503 maybe, but why package a snapshot like that when you can > just have a "

Re: smaller than 0 but not negative (Re: question about "Conflicts:"

On 05/04/12 00:14, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > ]] Patrick Lauer > >> Not this decade - we're ahead of the pack, as usual ;) > So you don't support for instance 1.0~git20120503, then? (the git > snapshot from today of what will become 1.0) > What a weird idea. 1.0_pre20120503 maybe, but why package

Re: smaller than 0 but not negative (Re: question about "Conflicts:"

]] Patrick Lauer > Not this decade - we're ahead of the pack, as usual ;) So you don't support for instance 1.0~git20120503, then? (the git snapshot from today of what will become 1.0) -- Tollef Fog Heen UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, em

Re: Node.js and it's future in debian

Thomas Goirand writes: > On 05/02/2012 06:00 AM, Russ Allbery wrote: >> and the binary isn't invoked directly by users > If the binary isn't invoked directly by the users, why do we have a > problem? Why can't a patch be introduced so that the binary doesn't live > in a user accessible path (eg:

Re: Node.js and it's future in debian

Bernd Zeimetz writes: > If one of the maintainers disagrees with a solution you did not come to > a consensus. No, this is not true. Consensus does not mean unanimity, and the Policy dictate is (in my opinion with my Policy delegate hat on) referring to a consensus of the project, not a consens

Re: smaller than 0 but not negative (Re: question about "Conflicts:"

On 05/03/12 23:16, Holger Levsen wrote: > Hi, > > On Donnerstag, 3. Mai 2012, Guillem Jover wrote: >> RPM has now support for ~ in latest git. > oh shiny! thanks for that pointer! anybody know by chance whether gentoo is > jumping on this too? Not this decade - we're ahe

Re: smaller than 0 but not negative (Re: question about "Conflicts:"

Hi, On Donnerstag, 3. Mai 2012, Guillem Jover wrote: > RPM has now support for ~ in latest git. oh shiny! thanks for that pointer! anybody know by chance whether gentoo is jumping on this too? cheers, Holger -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...

Re: Making -devel discussions more viable

Stefano Zacchiroli writes: > 2) "don't feed the troll" + report abuses to listmasters and act >accordingly Of the three, this is the least disruptive, in my opinion. Of course, all the problems you mention (social awkwardity, effort from the community and extra burden on listmasters) apply,

Re: Making -devel discussions more viable

Riku Voipio writes: > On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 01:23:29PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: >> 3) public, but contributors-only list > >> This has been implemented by other FOSS projects. A notable example is >> Ubuntu who have a split between ubuntu-devel (project members only + >> whitelisting)

Re: Making -devel discussions more viable (was: switching from exim to postfix)

On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 01:23:29PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > 3) public, but contributors-only list > This has been implemented by other FOSS projects. A notable example is > Ubuntu who have a split between ubuntu-devel (project members only + > whitelisting) and ubuntu-devel-discuss (fre

Re: Node.js and it's future in debian

On 05/02/2012 06:00 AM, Russ Allbery wrote: > and the binary isn't invoked directly by > users If the binary isn't invoked directly by the users, why do we have a problem? Why can't a patch be introduced so that the binary doesn't live in a user accessible path (eg: not in /usr/bin)? Thomas --

Re: Making -devel discussions more viable (was: switching from exim to postfix)

On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 10:11:23AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Given recent experiences, I'm also coming around to Ian's position that > aggressive and confrontational contributions from people who don't > otherwise seem to be contributing to Debian are part of the problem and > are not useful, an

Re: Node.js and it's future in debian

Le 03.05.2012 09:19, Bernd Zeimetz a écrit : On 05/01/2012 11:32 PM, Jonathan Nieder wrote: 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

Re: smaller than 0 but not negative (Re: question about "Conflicts:"

On Wed, 2012-05-02 at 19:28:35 -0600, Holger Levsen wrote: > On Montag, 30. April 2012, Ralf Treinen wrote: > > Conflicts: foo (>= 0), foo (<< 0) > > to be exact, since versions smaller than 0 are possible. > > *grin* > > btw, is the concept of numbers smaller than zero but not negative known/use

Re: Node.js and it's future in debian

On 05/01/2012 11:32 PM, 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 >