Re: Added autopkgtest for busco - Closes #1010653
Hi Andrius,
Am Tue, Jun 07, 2022 at 10:31:23AM +0300 schrieb Andrius Merkys:
> >> On 2022-06-06 22:37, Mohd Bilal wrote:
> >>> I have added an autopkgtest for busco[1] as mentioned in bug report[2].
> >>> The license for the test data needs to be added. I have opened an
> >>> issue[3] upstream asking for clarification. Requesting someone to review
> >>> my changes .
> >
> > Cool. Just uploaded after checking. Upload permissions granted in
> > case further uploads might be necessary.
>
> Erm. Was not the original intent to wait for the upstream clarification
> of the license of this data? And what about mention in debian/copyright?
Aaaargh, I was to much concentratet on the second part of the mail. :-(
> If the ftpmaster reviews were properly done for every upload, this
> upload should be rejected, IMHO.
Well, right. It will not come to ftpmaster inspection as multi-source
tarballs are not supposed to pass new.
> >>> [1] - https://salsa.debian.org/med-team/busco
> >>> [2] - https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1010653
> >>> [3] - https://gitlab.com/ezlab/busco/-/issues/566
> >>
> >> Thanks a lot for pushing forward with this. Can you tell me why you
> >> decided to add 'debian-tests-data' component instead of just putting
> >> test files somewhere under debian/? IMO this unnecessarily complicates
> >> the source package, but I would like to hear other opinions too.
> >
> > This is perfectly in line with the request of ftpmaster to keep the
> > debian/ dir "sensibly" small and I'm pretty sure ftpmaster would have
> > been rejected the package if the data would have been under debian/
> > (we had such cases in the past). There are borderline cases where
> > only a "few" data files are needed but in this case the debian-tests-data
> > tarball is even an order of magnitude larger than the actual source
> > package - so this case is pretty clear.
> >
> > Its actually also not that complicated and documented in Debian Med
> > policy[4] (thanks to Nilesh).
>
> To me this looks like an intricate evasion of unclear policy
> requirements. 26 MB of uncompressed textual data is "sensibly" small to
> me. Are there any actual guidelines from ftpmaster on what is not
> "sensible"?
The only guideline *I* know is that the limit is way lower than you
think. :-( I've seen rejects for **way** lower data sets - in this case
even my gut feeling says here a multi-source tarball is the right way to
go.
> > You probably did not followed all GSoC mails we exchanged with Bilal
> > but it was one of the first lessons we teached him. ;-)
>
> If they were exchanged in debian-med@, I clearly missed them.
Yes, it was on debian-med@lists.debian.org.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: