[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: How much data load is acceptable in debian/ dir and upstream (Was: edtsurf_0.2009-7_amd64.changes REJECTED)

On Tuesday, September 15, 2020 11:18:28 P.M. CDT Andreas Tille wrote:
> Hi Paul,
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 10:00:45PM +0200, Paul Gevers wrote:
> > On 14-09-2020 21:04, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > > In the case of larger data sets it seems to be natural to provide the
> > > data in a separate binary architecture all package to not bloat the
> > > machines of users who do not want this and also save bandwidt of our
> > > mirroring network.  New binary packages require new processing and my
> > > question is here about a set of rejection mails we received ( .
> > 
> > I assume you realized, but just in case you didn't: the data doesn't
> > need to go into any binary package for autopkgtests to find it. While
> > running autopkgtests, the SOURCE is unpackaged and available. (You
> > mentioned other reasons why you want it, though.)
> Yes, that fact is perfectly known.  However, in the current discussion
> this would only "help" us since without an extra binary package we would
> "avoid" the ftpmaster review of the source package.  My intention is
> not to avoid the review but to clarify the situation.
> If I understood ftpmaster correctly the amount of data in the source
> package is the problem.  It would be great to hear other developers
> opinion about the size of data needed for proper testing and where to
> put these.  

Since you're soliciting opinions, here's mine.  In the absence of a documented 
consensus, ftpmaster should respect the packager's judgement rather than 
reject on their own personal opinion.

>From your original set of questions:

> On Sun, Sep 13, 2020 at 12:00:08PM +0000, Thorsten Alteholz wrote:[1]
> > your debian tar file is much too large.
> > Please put all data in a separate source package and don't forget to add  
the copyright information.
> I admit the debian/ dir (2.7MB) exceeds the real code (300kB) by far.
> However can we please fix somewhere in our packaging documentation
> what size of the debian/ dir is acceptable or not.

Thorsten's observation ("... is much too large") is completely arbitrary.  
Also, why does size matter?  If the files are necessary, they will show up 
somewhere.  Why do we care which tarball they are part of?

> On Sun Sep 13 13:00:09 BST 2020, Thorsten Alteholz wrote:[2]
> > please explain why you need such a huge amount of test data in this
> > package.

This is, to me, also a completely arbitrary opinion ("huge amount").  
Ftpmaster should give the packager the benefit of the doubt.  They have 
presumably also noticed the amount of data and deemed it acceptable.  This 
should not be a barrier to acceptance.  

Demanding an explanation up front is also an arbitrary request.  Allow the 
package and have a conversation afterwards.

> On  Sun Sep 13 18:00:08 BST 2020, Thorsten Alteholz wrote:[3]
> > please don't hide data under debian/*.

There shouldn't be a need for language ("hide data") that suggests possible 
malfeasance on the part of the packager.  If the file placement is against 
documented consensus, then simply point to the relevant policy section.  
Otherwise, accept the package without editorializing.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Reply to: