Re: [Pkg-octave-devel] [RFU] octave-interval 1.2.0-1
* Sébastien Villemot <sebastien@debian.org> [2015-10-07 22:53]:
Le mercredi 07 octobre 2015 à 22:43 +0200, Sébastien Villemot a écrit :
- is the separation in two packages really necessary? My
understanding is that separating arch-indep files is only warranted
for big packages, because it saves space on the Debian ftp servers. In
the present case, given that the package is small, I don't think that
the overhead created by a separate -common package is warranted. I
think it just adds complexity for no benefit. Or am I missing
something?
The creation of two packages was done originally by me.
Note that the Developers' reference seems to agree with me:
https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/ch06.html#bpp-archindepdata
The Developer's Reference does not give numerical values for the minimal
size of the data in /ush/share that warrant the split of the package.
However, Lintian adopts precise bonds in its check huge-usr-share:
"The package has a significant amount of architecture-independent data
(over 4MB, or over 2MB and more than 50% of the package) in /usr/share
but is an architecture-dependent package. This is wasteful of mirror
space and bandwidth since it means distributing multiple copies of this
data, one for each architecture."
Even though the size of octave-interval-common (550K) is much larger than
that of octave-interval (63K). this clearly does not meet the requirement
of Lintian's check huge-usr-share.
Hence, I second Sébastien's suggestion.
Rafael
Reply to: