Bug#935160: Unnecessary dependencies vs multiple binary packages
Hi members of CTTE,
I'd like to bring to your notice a disagreement with ftp masters about adding multiple binary packages when the same source package has code targeting multiple environments. I have been told already that CTTE cannot overrule an ftp master decision, so I'm just asking for opinion of the CTTE. If your opinion is favorable to me, it can help me if decide to start a GR eventually.
I was also told to contact CTTE and DPL before going for a GR by js team members.
Packages with disagreement are node-autoprefixer and ruby-task-list.
Though ftp masters stated on irc, node-autoprefixer will not be accepted, it was eventually accepted and in the archive. But ruby-task-list was rejected.
If I follow ftp master recommendation, node-autoprefixer binary should just provide libjs-autoprefixer . But it means anyone installing libjs-autoprefixer will have nodejs installed, even though libjs-autoprefixer can work without nodejs installed (it will be served by a web server and executed by a browser).
In the same way, ruby-task-list binary should provide node-deckar01-task-list. So anyone installing node-deckar01-task-list will get ruby and other dependencies of ruby-task-list installed even though it is not necessary. Same way anyone installing ruby-task-list will get nodejs unnecessarily.
Alternatively, if I drop nodejs and ruby dependencies, any package depending on ruby-task-list will have to add ruby-task-list's dependencies as its own dependencies.
Initial discussion with ftp masters (readable via a matrix client):
I have to copy each message from riot separately.
Here it is,
Me: please review node-autoprefixer, it adds libjs-autoprefixer binary required to replace embedded copy of autoprefixer.js in ruby-autoprefixer-rails
Pirate Praveen: you have been asked to not do that
me: waldi: this time there is a valid reason
unlike the previous cases
waldi: Pirate Praveen: no. nodejs as dependency is no reason
me: waldi: I'd like to ask this as an official statement from ftp team and I'd like to challenge it with CTTE
should I open a bug agianst ftp.debian.org?
ScottK: Pirate Praveen: CTTE can't overrule FTP team.
The only way to overrule a delegate is GR.
Just so you know what you're in for.
Gannef, and yes, open a bug.
highvoltage: Pirate Praveen: fwiw, I know that that path will take you nowhere, the ftp teams's advice here is sound and upwards of 99% of DDs will agree with their judgement here, it's going to be futile to fight it, I suggest you rather find a better solution for the package, that's a better way to spend your (and everybody elses) energy
me: highvoltage: fine, at least let this be on record
highvoltage: policy is quite clear on it and there's even an entire wiki page on the topic (https://wiki.debian.org/EmbeddedCodeCopies), I guess if you need further records on that, then that's your business
waldi: highvoltage: it's not about code copies. but about adding additional binary packages just to avoid one dependency
me: Ganneff: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=921628
highvoltage: ew that's even worse
Gannef: it does sound like a plenty bad idea
And some more...
Bug asking ftp masters for official statement (no response till now): https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=921628
I think such policies should be applied consistently to all packages (it was inconsistently applied in the two packages I refer) and published (currently there is no official statement).
The outcomes could be,
a) CTTE agrees with ftp masters in rejecting ruby-task-list source package with node-deckar01-task-list binary added to existing ruby-task-list binary (currently in the master branch of https://salsa.debian.org/ruby-team/ruby-task-list).
b) CTTE disagree with the rejection of ruby-task-list source package with node-deckar01-task-list binary added to existing ruby-task-list binary. But since CTTE cannot overrule ftp masters, the decision stands unless overruled by a GR.
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.