Bug#772983: kirkwood kernel image is too big

[Ian Campbell <ijc@debian.org>]

On Fri, 2014-12-12 at 20:59 +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> That implies we want to allow for about 1% growth
> from the size in the .0 release.

I'm considering something like this. What do you think?

diff --git a/debian/bin/buildcheck.py b/debian/bin/buildcheck.py
index a6f6f06..5bb815c 100755
--- a/debian/bin/buildcheck.py
+++ b/debian/bin/buildcheck.py
@@ -174,6 +174,8 @@ class CheckImage(object):
         self.dir = dir
         self.arch, self.featureset, self.flavour = arch, featureset, flavour
 
+        self.changelog = Changelog(version=VersionLinux)[0]
+
         self.config_entry_build = config.merge('build', arch, featureset, flavour)
         self.config_entry_image = config.merge('image', arch, featureset, flavour)
 
@@ -206,7 +208,18 @@ class CheckImage(object):
             out.write('Image too large (%d > %d)!  Refusing to continue.\n' % (size, value))
             return 1
 
-        out.write('Image fits (%d <= %d).  Continuing.\n' % (size, value))
+        # 1% overhead is desirable in order to cope with growth
+        # through the lifetime of a stable release. Enforce that
+        # development releases leave sufficient overhead.
+        soft_value = value * 0.99
+        if size > soft_value:
+            out.write('Image has <1%% overhead (%d > %d).' % (size, soft_value))
+            if self.changelog.distribution in ["unstable", "experimental", "UNRELEASED"]:
+                out.write(' Refusing to continue.\n')
+                return 1
+            out.write(' Continuing.\n')
+
+        out.write('Image fits (%d <= %d, soft %d).  Continuing.\n' % (size, value, soft_value))
         return 0