Debian Bug report logs - #611698
nodejs: conflicts with package node needlessly

Toggle useless messages

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "brian m. carlson" <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>

To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>

Subject: nodejs: conflicts with package node needlessly

Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 01:43:27 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Package: nodejs
Version: 0.2.6-1
Severity: serious
Tags: experimental

It appears that nodejs in experimental has acquired a Conflicts with
node.  According to the changes file for that release:

   * Use upstream binary names for node and node-waf,
     conflicts with node package. (Closes: #597571)

I still don't believe that is allowed by Debian Policy.  Section 10.1
states:

     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 Section 3.9,
     `Maintainer Scripts' and Section 7.4, `Conflicting binary packages -
     `Conflicts'' 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.

#597571 had been marked wontfix, but then was mysteriously closed in
experimental.  If this isn't in contravention of Debian Policy (which is
possible, I suppose), then what's been done to resolve it so it isn't
should be put in README.Debian or NEWS.Debian.

-- System Information:
Debian Release: 6.0
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 2.6.37-trunk-amd64 (SMP w/2 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash

-- 
brian m. carlson / brian with sandals: Houston, Texas, US
+1 832 623 2791 | http://www.crustytoothpaste.net/~bmc | My opinion only
OpenPGP: RSA v4 4096b: 88AC E9B2 9196 305B A994 7552 F1BA 225C 0223 B187

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #10 received at 611698@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Julien Cristau <jcristau@debian.org>

To: "brian m. carlson" <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>, 611698@bugs.debian.org

Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#611698: nodejs: conflicts with package node needlessly

Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 17:50:31 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Tue, Feb  1, 2011 at 01:43:27 +0000, brian m. carlson wrote:

> Package: nodejs
> Version: 0.2.6-1
> Severity: serious
> Tags: experimental
> 
> It appears that nodejs in experimental has acquired a Conflicts with
> node.  According to the changes file for that release:
> 
>    * Use upstream binary names for node and node-waf,
>      conflicts with node package. (Closes: #597571)
> 
> I still don't believe that is allowed by Debian Policy.

Correct, that's not an acceptable use of Conflicts.

Cheers,
Julien

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #15 received at 611698@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Jérémy Lal <jerry@edagames.com>

To: Julien Cristau <jcristau@debian.org>

Cc: "brian m. carlson" <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>, 611698@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#611698: nodejs: conflicts with package node needlessly

Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 23:42:00 +0100

Hi,
not having /usr/bin/node as nodejs binary path will without any
doubt render nodejs package unuseful for a vast majority of users.
It simply makes them use another package than the one in debian,
and most of them, if not all, don't even take care of the possibility
of name conflict between /sbin/node and /usr/bin/node.
If the renaming is unavoidable, then nodejs package is better off debian,
along with all modules and dependent software : we'll just have to maintain
it in another repository.
It's like renaming /usr/bin/ruby to /usr/bin/rubyrb.

That's the *main* reason why nodejs has been removed from testing,
the other being it was already obsolete.
Package 0.2.0-1 explained in README.Debian it was the user responsibility
to symlink /usr/local/bin/node to /usr/bin/nodejs, which does not solve
the conflict with /sbin/node in any way, and in my opinion leads to
a worse situation; except that it complied with debian policy.

Note that for now, nodejs 0.2.6-1 is in *experimental*, which means
we have to solve the conflict problem, and only then it will go to unstable.

In the meantime, i agree these matters deserves a proper explanation
in README.Debian.

Jérémy Lal

Message #20 received at 611698@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>

To: Jérémy Lal <jerry@edagames.com>

Cc: "brian m. carlson" <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>, 611698@bugs.debian.org, node@packages.debian.org

Subject: Re: nodejs: conflicts with package node needlessly

Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 02:47:42 -0600

(-cc: Julien.  Julien, if you were interested and only read this
late through debian-bugs-rc, sorry about that.
+cc: node@packages.debian.org)

Hi Jérémy,

Jérémy Lal wrote:

> not having /usr/bin/node as nodejs binary path will without any
> doubt render nodejs package unuseful for a vast majority of users.

One solution to this kind of namespace conflict used by some packages
is to put a binary or symlink someplace like

	/usr/lib/nodejs

and ask the user to put it on $PATH if she likes it.

> Package 0.2.0-1 explained in README.Debian it was the user responsibility
> to symlink /usr/local/bin/node to /usr/bin/nodejs, which does not solve
> the conflict with /sbin/node in any way

Right.  However, asking the user to symlink ~/bin/node to
/usr/bin/nodejs would half solve the problem.

But the fundamental problem is independent of Debian.  The bare name
"node" should be usable in scripts, but currently, such use does not
make it clear whether the packet radio program or node.js is meant.
In my opinion, the right solution is to get node.js and node upstream
to agree on what the name should mean.

Yes, this could mean a renaming and unpleasant transition.  Such is
life. :/

Hope that helps,
Jonathan

Message #25 received at 611698@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>

To: Jérémy Lal <jerry@edagames.com>

Cc: "brian m. carlson" <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>, 611698@bugs.debian.org, node@packages.debian.org

Subject: Re: nodejs: conflicts with package node needlessly

Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 02:57:02 -0600

Jérémy Lal wrote:

> not having /usr/bin/node as nodejs binary path will without any
> doubt render nodejs package unuseful for a vast majority of users.

Ah, I forgot to mention: have you considered asking for advice on
debian-devel, as policy §10.1 recommends?

Message #30 received at 611698@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Jérémy Lal <jerry@edagames.com>

To: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>

Cc: "brian m. carlson" <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>, 611698@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: nodejs: conflicts with package node needlessly

Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2011 11:09:10 +0100

On 07/02/2011 09:57, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Jérémy Lal wrote:
> 
>> not having /usr/bin/node as nodejs binary path will without any
>> doubt render nodejs package unuseful for a vast majority of users.
> 
> Ah, I forgot to mention: have you considered asking for advice on
> debian-devel, as policy §10.1 recommends?

Yes, please see :
http://bugs.debian.org/597571#10

and links therein.

Jérémy.

Message #35 received at 611698@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Jérémy Lal <jerry@edagames.com>

To: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>, 611698@bugs.debian.org

Cc: "brian m. carlson" <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>, node@packages.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#611698: nodejs: conflicts with package node needlessly

Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2011 11:19:25 +0100

On 07/02/2011 09:47, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> (-cc: Julien.  Julien, if you were interested and only read this
> late through debian-bugs-rc, sorry about that.
> +cc: node@packages.debian.org)
> 
> Hi Jérémy,
> 
> Jérémy Lal wrote:
> 
>> not having /usr/bin/node as nodejs binary path will without any
>> doubt render nodejs package unuseful for a vast majority of users.
> 
> One solution to this kind of namespace conflict used by some packages
> is to put a binary or symlink someplace like
> 
> 	/usr/lib/nodejs
> 
> and ask the user to put it on $PATH if she likes it.
> 
>> Package 0.2.0-1 explained in README.Debian it was the user responsibility
>> to symlink /usr/local/bin/node to /usr/bin/nodejs, which does not solve
>> the conflict with /sbin/node in any way
> 
> Right.  However, asking the user to symlink ~/bin/node to
> /usr/bin/nodejs would half solve the problem.
> 
> But the fundamental problem is independent of Debian.  The bare name
> "node" should be usable in scripts, but currently, such use does not
> make it clear whether the packet radio program or node.js is meant.
> In my opinion, the right solution is to get node.js and node upstream
> to agree on what the name should mean.
> 
> Yes, this could mean a renaming and unpleasant transition.  Such is
> life. :/

I discussed the /sbin/node name conflict with "ham radio maintainers",
on debian-devel, with upstream nodejs, but totally forgot to ask upstream ax25,
my bad. I'm going to do that now (infamously).

Jérémy.

Message #40 received at 611698@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>

To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org

Cc: nodejs@packages.debian.org, node@packages.debian.org, "brian m. carlson" <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>

Subject: The "node" command in Debian

Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 04:46:57 -0600

(please follow-up to debian-devel only)
Hi Debianites,

As you may know[0], there are currently two packages in Debian
experimental providing a "node" binary.

[0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2010/08/msg00568.html

The node.js project
-------------------
One is from the node.js project.  It was renamed from "server" to
"node" on March 3, 2009.  The purpose of this tool is to run servers
and other event-based programs written in Javascript.

The maintainer for this package in Debian has written[1]:

| not having /usr/bin/node as nodejs binary path will without any
| doubt render nodejs package unuseful for a vast majority of users.

[1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?msg=15;bug=611698

The LinuxNode project
---------------------
The other is a frontend to libax25, an AX.25 implementation for Linux.
Hardware implementations of AX.25 are apparently called "terminal node
controllers" or "nodes" for short; hence this Linux-based
implementation was called LinuxNode and its binary called "node".  It
was introduced in January, 1996.  It seems that its family tree also
includes (unpackaged) implementations named AWZNode and FlexNode.

The node package does not seem to have a very active maintainer since
Joop Stakenborg retired.  On the debian-hams list, we read[2]:

| As a continuous very long term (about 1994) user of kernel ax25 I
| object strongly to this request which will affect far more users
| world-wide than just a few nodejs users.

[2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-hams/2010/08/msg00032.html

Debian policy
-------------
Both of these projects are, of course, insane to use such a generic
binary name.  But Debian policy does not say "you must not use such a
generic name unless you are a net.god" --- only common sense does.

Problem: scripts may use the 'node' name to refer to either of these
programs.  Which should get the name?  You decide, based not on
popularity or priority but --- well, based on whatever makes sense.

If no consensus emerges, policy §10.1 in its Solomon-like wisdom says
_both_ commands must be renamed.  I hope we can do better.  I will be
happy to file release-critical bugs against both packages to that
effect if not.

With hope,
Jonathan

Disclaimer: I am ignorant about both packages.  Some naïve part of
me believes that it will be possible for mature people not ignorant
about them to figure out a reasonable solution.

Message #45 received at 611698@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>

To: Jérémy Lal <jerry@edagames.com>

Cc: 611698@bugs.debian.org, "brian m. carlson" <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>, node@packages.debian.org

Subject: Re: nodejs: conflicts with package node needlessly

Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 04:52:41 -0600

Jérémy Lal wrote:

> I discussed the /sbin/node name conflict with "ham radio maintainers",
> on debian-devel, with upstream nodejs, but totally forgot to ask upstream ax25,
> my bad. I'm going to do that now (infamously).

Good luck!  Probably worth mentioning the same on debian-devel in
reply to http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20110207104656.GA10756@elie
I received your message moments too late; sorry for the fuss.

Message #60 received at 611698@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Yaroslav Halchenko <debian@onerussian.com>

To: 611698@bugs.debian.org

Subject: any progress

Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 20:31:41 -0400

I wondered if there is any progress on this issue 

Cheers

-- 
=------------------------------------------------------------------=
Keep in touch                                     www.onerussian.com
Yaroslav Halchenko                 www.ohloh.net/accounts/yarikoptic

Message #65 received at 611698@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Jérémy Lal <kapouer@melix.org>

To: 611698@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Bug#611698: any progress

Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 09:43:30 +0200

Stalled.
See also :
http://bugs.debian.org/614907

Jérémy.

Message #70 received at 611698@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Asbjørn Sloth Tønnesen <ast@mugami.com>

To: 611698@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Lets move on

Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 12:06:35 +0000

nodejs is really needed in testing, so lets rename /usr/bin/node to 
/usr/bin/nodejs and drop the Conflict entry. Then build another package 
called nodejs-node, which depends on nodejs, and contains a symlinks 
/usr/bin/node to nodejs and conflicts the node package. Maybe add a 
"Suggest: nodejs-node" to the nodejs package. nodejs-node might even be 
its own source package.

After that the fight can continue between the nodejs-node and node 
package. Then nodejs can migrate to testing and nodejs-node can be held 
back by this issue.

If nodejs had been in testing it would have been protected from this 
annoying bug:
http://bugs.debian.org/666051

-- 
Best regards
Asbjørn Sloth Tønnesen
Mugami

Message #75 received at 611698@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Surendra Singhi <ssinghi@kreeti.com>

To: 611698@bugs.debian.org

Subject: ssh bug in node js as well

Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2012 00:07:02 +0530

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

The bug mentioned in http://bugs.debian.org/666051 is effecting the debian
nodejs as well, one cannot use nodejs to connect to Facebook (and perhaps
few other sites) using https.

-- 
Surendra Singhi
Kreeti Technologies


web: http://www.kreeti.com
facebook: http://facebook.com/KreetiTechnologies<http://www.facebook.com/pages/Kreeti-Technologies/100261250058049>
twitter: http://twitter.com/kreetitech

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

Message #82 received at 611698-close@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk>

To: 611698-close@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Bug#611698: fixed in nodejs 0.6.19~dfsg1-3

Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 18:17:24 +0000

Source: nodejs
Source-Version: 0.6.19~dfsg1-3

We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of
nodejs, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive.

A summary of the changes between this version and the previous one is
attached.

Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed.  If you
have further comments please address them to 611698@bugs.debian.org,
and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate.

Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk> (supplier of updated nodejs package)

(This message was generated automatically at their request; if you
believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive
administrators by mailing ftpmaster@debian.org)


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Format: 1.8
Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2012 11:19:38 +0200
Source: nodejs
Binary: nodejs-dev nodejs nodejs-dbg nodejs-legacy
Architecture: source all amd64
Version: 0.6.19~dfsg1-3
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Debian Javascript Maintainers <pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org>
Changed-By: Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk>
Description: 
 nodejs     - Node.js event-based server-side javascript engine
 nodejs-dbg - Node.js event-based server-side javascript engine (debug)
 nodejs-dev - Development files for Node.js
 nodejs-legacy - Node.js event-based server-side javascript engine (legacy symlink
Closes: 611698 678563 681360
Changes: 
 nodejs (0.6.19~dfsg1-3) unstable; urgency=low
 .
   [ Jérémy Lal ]
   * debian/patches:
     + 2012_fix_v8_3_10.patch, fix crash on exit when building
       against libv8-3.10.8.
     + 2013_waf_linkflags.patch, waf must support LINKFLAGS,
       Closes: #678563.
 .
   [ Jonas Smedegaard ]
   * Rename binary node → nodejs:
     + Adjust paths of binary and manpage.
     + Fix avoid bogus explicit installation of debug files.
     + Adjust install scripts and add cleanup for old alternative.
     + Patch manpage to adjust command name.
     + Have binary package nodejs break any packages in Debian that
       reference /usr/bin/node.
     + Add new binary package nodejs-legacy, and have that (not nodejs)
       conflict with node.
     + Add NEWS entry.
     Closes: bug#611698, #681360. See also bug#614907. Thanks to
     tech-ctte and everyone else helping to resolve this.
   * Work around upstream shipping docs in wrong subdir, and disable huge
     patch 1002 attempting same but causing FTBFS for me. Keep patch 1002
     in source, to ease proof-reading by release team.
   * Add patch 2004 to fix FTBFS: Relax a test to work with slightly
     different output when linked against recent v8.
Checksums-Sha1: 
 a9af12c782ae7d7e3c84921b63bd44990caa88aa 2339 nodejs_0.6.19~dfsg1-3.dsc
 d76fa86368c6c3f38e0e1166fea8bbada663bf23 743280 nodejs_0.6.19~dfsg1-3.debian.tar.gz
 fe2a39ac9daf89cb51bab913dc92dd954dd581df 51562 nodejs-legacy_0.6.19~dfsg1-3_all.deb
 4abb962dcd2664829bb62b48a327250e0fb30f8b 191636 nodejs-dev_0.6.19~dfsg1-3_amd64.deb
 65d44c48f2d40c1c52e25d5083374d5b705d42f4 801780 nodejs_0.6.19~dfsg1-3_amd64.deb
 5365fb6cdf55667af8c35e19257eb682c826e735 1167708 nodejs-dbg_0.6.19~dfsg1-3_amd64.deb
Checksums-Sha256: 
 00bb4a8e01ac329ca6601ed45cb43923d1fb57b7c78dbf2f66f574339d06ec9f 2339 nodejs_0.6.19~dfsg1-3.dsc
 cda975efd4137c333ec9a0faee821570d39f2c997b6fc1afc6f3dd6971d3a98a 743280 nodejs_0.6.19~dfsg1-3.debian.tar.gz
 07b0dfb72d261be0af8318f4e67a5b7dd662edacdd00bc1c328ff285b626ab11 51562 nodejs-legacy_0.6.19~dfsg1-3_all.deb
 df4cedc2e92db717c8af7631368f2642f7d538bb4533ccc6dfb43e1da14db472 191636 nodejs-dev_0.6.19~dfsg1-3_amd64.deb
 a3b77621200a70c910c1b2043f427dbf89f6f894f179f5887ed7fcb7488ad336 801780 nodejs_0.6.19~dfsg1-3_amd64.deb
 80b28244e3585f111377cd9fe09e3a28411e2c412cddcd6d6575ff66b7160ee0 1167708 nodejs-dbg_0.6.19~dfsg1-3_amd64.deb
Files: 
 5d3c09cd6c26b1e2d6c893bae42eca4d 2339 web extra nodejs_0.6.19~dfsg1-3.dsc
 bf3035ee37dbe10135d4b2a3f768627e 743280 web extra nodejs_0.6.19~dfsg1-3.debian.tar.gz
 de23de0f246814242e53e5c7e5f8ff9d 51562 web extra nodejs-legacy_0.6.19~dfsg1-3_all.deb
 76f363d354c6d15e89938888ac26f7de 191636 devel extra nodejs-dev_0.6.19~dfsg1-3_amd64.deb
 6e8d5cdbe9fef69a0fda203e178aa277 801780 web extra nodejs_0.6.19~dfsg1-3_amd64.deb
 b6b1e67f06074b4f1fc3961da7be3ce0 1167708 debug extra nodejs-dbg_0.6.19~dfsg1-3_amd64.deb

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
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=0p+S
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Message #87 received at 611698@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Russell Haley <rhaley@tamu.edu>

To: 611698@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Prominent warning needed on installation

Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 05:10:44 -0600

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Seeing as so many things depend on 'node' being the node.js interpreter,
such as the npm package and the build system used by pdf.js, there
really ought to be a prominent warning shown on installation that users
probably want to symlinke /usr/local/bin/node to /usr/bin/nodejs.

The name conflict is a serious problem, but it would be much less
serious if users were made aware of it.

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.