Re: We need a global decision about R data in binary format, and stick to it.
On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 05:44:16PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > My last question is, given the answers to the previous questions, what
> > do we do with the R packages that are already in the archive and also
> > contain data that is editable as is but do have an original source,
> > who will do it, and what is the timeline in case of inaction.
> The package maintainer should handle it; in the case of inaction from
> upstream, the package maintainer can then either remove the data, split
> the package, move the package to non-free, or remove the package from
> Debian entirely. The timeline should be the standard one that is used
> for all RC bugs.
> > In the current situation, that I describe as "active bitrotting", we
> > do not apply the same rules to the packages that enter the archive and
> > the packages that are already in, which cause the packages under
> > active development to become obsolete each time new dependancies can
> > not enter in Debian.
> We actually do and should apply the same rules. Sometimes violations of
> the rules are missed for a while, though, and we have to come back and
> file bugs with severity serious to deal with the problem.
Just to provide the number and names of source packages in main/unstable
that are containing at least one *.rda file:
$ echo "deb http://http.debian.net/debian/ unstable main" > sources.list.main_sources_unstable
$ sudo apt-file --architecture source --sources-list sources.list.main_sources_unstable update
$ apt-file --architecture source --sources-list sources.list.main_sources_unstable search ".rda" | sed 's/: .*$//' | uniq
These are 67 packages. I have no numbers whether the *.rda files were
added in a later version than the one accepted by ftpmaster.
> > Currently, my take would be to move packages to non-free. This would
> > also allow us to ship the PDF documentation that we currently delete.
> In these cases, we should split the package out into a non-free
> component and a free component.
I personally would agree with the ftpmaster policy used in the past to
accept these packages in main.
> I should note that I'm currently distributing via debian-r.debian.net a
> few hundred packages which probably have this particular problem too.
... in case you really regard this as "problem".