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

Bug#934948: Unnecessary dependencies vs multiple binary packages



On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 02:40:29 -0400 Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> wrote:
> Unless someone can figure out an actual resolvable controversy, I don't seen
> any point in bothering other FTP team members with this. To the extent
> anything is being requested, it seems like it's infeasible (write down exact
> rules for what too small to split into multiple binaries would be and then
> have all FTP team members apply the standard perfectly).

I don't think ruby-task-list was rejected because the new binary was small. In the reject mail it was already acknowledged.

"While the (compiled) _javascript_ part is quite large (8k), this split is only done to save one dependency (either ruby or nodejs) from being installed. We've talked about this."

ruby-task-list depends on not just ruby,

ruby | ruby-interpreter, ruby-rack, ruby-activesupport, ruby-html-pipeline

So if I remove these dependencies from ruby-task-list, then every package depending on ruby-task-list will have to add these dependencies themselves.

I don't think its reasonable to expect every package depending on ruby-task-list to already depend on these packages too.

My contention is that ruby-task-list case is not same as node-autoprefixer and it should be allowed to create two separate binary packages targeting ruby and nodejs environments.
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Reply to: