[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#192571: marked as done (Size limit for doc packages)

Your message dated Fri, 11 Aug 2017 12:44:51 -0700
with message-id <87o9rlx51o.fsf@iris.silentflame.com>
and subject line Closing inactive Policy bugs
has caused the Debian Bug report #192571,
regarding Size limit for doc packages
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
192571: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=192571
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.5.9.0
Severity: minor

Hello,

the thread on debian-devel about

     "Generally accepted cut-off limit for -doc packages"

starting with

     http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200305/msg00218.html

showed that we need some policy about a reasonable size of -doc packages.
Because this thread shows as well that developers sometimes are not able to
comunicate I just point to the relevant mails of this thread.  There are

     http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200305/msg00455.html
     (the important part is after "Off the top of my head ..."

and 

     http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200305/msg00409.html
     (the important part starts with the shell script)

So we have some obviousely unnecessary -doc packages and some others were
luckyly prevented to go in because of the good work of ftpmaster.  So it
would be time to iron out this problem in the policy.  The following problem
in defining such a limit have shown up:

    Do we need an absolute limit of installed size of the doc package
    or should we define an additional relative limit compared to the
    rest of the binary package.

I feel not competent to decide that and so I have no fix for this problem -
sorry.  I would ask ftpmaster because he has the most experience here.

I second problem which was not adressed in the thread comes into mind:

    Do we need a maximum limit of installed size of documentation in
    binary packages.  In my opinion it should also be part of the policy
    that developers *should* split documentation from the binary package
    if it is larger than a *to be defined* limit (perhaps also defined
    as combination of absolute and relative values).

Kind regards

        Andreas.

-- System Information
Debian Release: testing/unstable
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux wr-linux02 2.4.20 #1 Don Mär 27 09:46:16 CET 2003 i686
Locale: LANG=de_DE@euro, LC_CTYPE=de_DE@euro

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
control: user debian-policy@packages.debian.org
control: usertag -1 +obsolete
control: tag -1 +wontfix

Russ Allbery and I did a round of in-person bug triage at DebConf17 and
we are closing this bug as inactive.

The reasons for closing fall into the following categories, from most
frequent to least frequent:

- issue is appropriate for Policy, there is a consensus on how to fix
  the problem, but preparing the patch is very time-consuming and no-one
  has volunteered to do it, and we do not judge the issue to be
  important enough to keep an open bug around;

- issue is appropriate for Policy but there does not yet exist a
  consensus on what should change, and no recent discussion.  A fresh
  discussion might allow us to reach consensus, and the messages in the
  old bug are unlikely to help very much; or

- issue is not appropriate for Policy.

If you feel this bug is still relevant and want to restart the
discussion, you can re-open the bug.  However, please consider instead
opening a new bug with a message that summarises and condenses the
previous discussion, updates the report for the current state of Debian,
and makes clear exactly what you think should change.

A lot of these old bugs have long side tangents and numerous messages,
and that old discussion is not necessarily helpful for figuring out what
Debian Policy should say today.

-- 
Sean Whitton

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


--- End Message ---
Reply to: