| 1 |
On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 8:21 AM, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hello, everyone. |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> It's my pleasure to announce that with a majority vote the QA team has |
| 5 |
> accepted a new policy. The accepted wording is: |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Total size of 'files' subdirectory of a package should not be larger |
| 8 |
> than 32 KiB. If the package needs more auxiliary files, they should |
| 9 |
> be put into SRC_URI e.g. via tarballs. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> (the total size being computed as a sum of apparent file sizes) |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> The relevant policy vote is finishing at bug #633758 [1]. The CI reports |
| 14 |
> [2] were updated to report packages whose 'files' directories exceed |
| 15 |
> 64 KiB, to avoid adding many new warnings at once. The limit will |
| 16 |
> be lowered down to 32 KiB as packages are fixed to comply with the new |
| 17 |
> policy. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> At the same time, I would like to explicitly remind developers that |
| 20 |
> the spirit of the policy is 'do not let "files" grow large', not 'make |
| 21 |
> sure you're one byte less than 32769.' Do not argue that your package |
| 22 |
> exceeds the limit only by few bytes -- even if it gets close to the |
| 23 |
> limit, then it means it's way too large. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
I just want to voice my opinion on this: as a developer, this policy |
| 26 |
is a royal pain in the ass. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
I would ask the council to please increase this limit to at least 100 |
| 29 |
KiB, preferably more. |
Archives