Re: Decreasing packaging overhead
On 11/01/2015 09:33 PM, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> But good luck to teach good practices upstream. See Ross's reply: 120
>> packages are depending on this.
>
> It's more than that. Given tooling that doesn't have excessive overhead
> for small packages, why call such packages "bad practices" in the first
> place?
It's not the package which is a bad practice, here, the maintainer is
only dealing with upstream.
What's a bad practice is creating a library for 2 lines of code.
Upstream should have tried to integrate this function into a bigger
library with more functionality to make it more useful.
>> Though it is also my view that packaging tiny stuff shouldn't be a
>> problem. If it is, then we should fix whatever it is that is problematic
>> in Debian infra.
>
> Agreed.
>
> Let's consider what overhead exists for a Debian package [...]
IMO, the reasoning should start from the *infra* part, ie, what is
taking a tall on dak / britney2 [/ others?], and what part of the infra
is too slow. In some case, rethinking these could work, on others, just
throwing more compute power at it could also do... I don't know the
Debian infra enough to be able to tell. Though where I work (ie: nearly
unlimited resources from the cloud) every resource issue is fixable...
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
Reply to: