Bug#934948: Unnecessary dependencies vs multiple binary packages
On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 02:40:29 -0400 Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> wrote:
> How small is too small is a judgement call may be the FTP team member
> reviewing the package. Different people will not always make the same
> judgement.
This is a straw man argument here. Neither the comment on node-autoprefixer nor ruby-task-list rejection was because it was small. The reason given was,
"... this split is only done to save one dependency (either ruby or nodejs) from being installed."
> 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).
>
See above, this not the contention here. The contention is about rejecting extra binary when more than just ruby or nodejs dependency is present.
I did not challenge small packages being rejected nor the case when split is done to save only the interpreter dependency (there is contention still about executable useful outside given language tools, but I will wait for an actual reject before challenging it).
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Reply to: