Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Michał Górny" <mgorny@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [QA] New policy: 'files' directory must not be larger than 32 KiB
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 07:42:32
Message-Id: 1513582940.990.1.camel@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] [QA] New policy: 'files' directory must not be larger than 32 KiB by Mike Gilbert
1 W dniu nie, 17.12.2017 o godzinie 13∶39 -0500, użytkownik Mike Gilbert
2 napisał:
3 > On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 8:21 AM, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote:
4 > > Hello, everyone.
5 > >
6 > > It's my pleasure to announce that with a majority vote the QA team has
7 > > accepted a new policy. The accepted wording is:
8 > >
9 > > Total size of 'files' subdirectory of a package should not be larger
10 > > than 32 KiB. If the package needs more auxiliary files, they should
11 > > be put into SRC_URI e.g. via tarballs.
12 > >
13 > > (the total size being computed as a sum of apparent file sizes)
14 > >
15 > > The relevant policy vote is finishing at bug #633758 [1]. The CI reports
16 > > [2] were updated to report packages whose 'files' directories exceed
17 > > 64 KiB, to avoid adding many new warnings at once. The limit will
18 > > be lowered down to 32 KiB as packages are fixed to comply with the new
19 > > policy.
20 > >
21 > > At the same time, I would like to explicitly remind developers that
22 > > the spirit of the policy is 'do not let "files" grow large', not 'make
23 > > sure you're one byte less than 32769.' Do not argue that your package
24 > > exceeds the limit only by few bytes -- even if it gets close to the
25 > > limit, then it means it's way too large.
26 >
27 > I just want to voice my opinion on this: as a developer, this policy
28 > is a royal pain in the ass.
29
30 Given that at the moment of the vote there was around 70 packages not
31 meeting the limit, I dare believe it isn't such a big issue for any
32 single developer.
33
34 > I would ask the council to please increase this limit to at least 100
35 > KiB, preferably more.
36
37 Let's give it a few days first, ok? Let's see how it works in practice
38 and get more feedback. It'd be kinda silly to abolish it at the moment
39 of introducing it.
40
41 That said, without the 32 KiB directory size limit, the 20 KiB file size
42 limit makes even less sense, so we should probably drop it.
43
44 --
45 Best regards,
46 Michał Górny