| 1 |
Am Sun, 17 Dec 2017 13:40:35 -0500 |
| 2 |
schrieb Mike Gilbert <floppym@g.o>: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Mike Gilbert <floppym@g.o> |
| 5 |
> wrote: |
| 6 |
> > On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 8:21 AM, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> |
| 7 |
> > wrote: |
| 8 |
> >> Hello, everyone. |
| 9 |
> >> |
| 10 |
> >> It's my pleasure to announce that with a majority vote the QA team |
| 11 |
> >> has accepted a new policy. The accepted wording is: |
| 12 |
> >> |
| 13 |
> >> Total size of 'files' subdirectory of a package should not be |
| 14 |
> >> larger than 32 KiB. If the package needs more auxiliary files, |
| 15 |
> >> they should be put into SRC_URI e.g. via tarballs. |
| 16 |
> >> |
| 17 |
> >> (the total size being computed as a sum of apparent file sizes) |
| 18 |
> >> |
| 19 |
> >> The relevant policy vote is finishing at bug #633758 [1]. The CI |
| 20 |
> >> reports [2] were updated to report packages whose 'files' |
| 21 |
> >> directories exceed 64 KiB, to avoid adding many new warnings at |
| 22 |
> >> once. The limit will be lowered down to 32 KiB as packages are |
| 23 |
> >> fixed to comply with the new policy. |
| 24 |
> >> |
| 25 |
> >> At the same time, I would like to explicitly remind developers that |
| 26 |
> >> the spirit of the policy is 'do not let "files" grow large', not |
| 27 |
> >> 'make sure you're one byte less than 32769.' Do not argue that |
| 28 |
> >> your package exceeds the limit only by few bytes -- even if it |
| 29 |
> >> gets close to the limit, then it means it's way too large. |
| 30 |
> > |
| 31 |
> > I just want to voice my opinion on this: as a developer, this policy |
| 32 |
> > is a royal pain in the ass. |
| 33 |
> > |
| 34 |
> > I would ask the council to please increase this limit to at least |
| 35 |
> > 100 KiB, preferably more. |
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
> Please substitute "QA team" for "council" in the above message. |
| 38 |
> Thanks. |
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
I second this request for the exact same reason. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
Lars |
Archives