| 1 |
On 12/17/17 19:39, Mike Gilbert wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 8:21 AM, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Hello, everyone. |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>> It's my pleasure to announce that with a majority vote the QA team has |
| 6 |
>> accepted a new policy. The accepted wording is: |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> Total size of 'files' subdirectory of a package should not be larger |
| 9 |
>> than 32 KiB. If the package needs more auxiliary files, they should |
| 10 |
>> be put into SRC_URI e.g. via tarballs. |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
>> (the total size being computed as a sum of apparent file sizes) |
| 13 |
>> |
| 14 |
>> The relevant policy vote is finishing at bug #633758 [1]. The CI reports |
| 15 |
>> [2] were updated to report packages whose 'files' directories exceed |
| 16 |
>> 64 KiB, to avoid adding many new warnings at once. The limit will |
| 17 |
>> be lowered down to 32 KiB as packages are fixed to comply with the new |
| 18 |
>> policy. |
| 19 |
>> |
| 20 |
>> At the same time, I would like to explicitly remind developers that |
| 21 |
>> the spirit of the policy is 'do not let "files" grow large', not 'make |
| 22 |
>> sure you're one byte less than 32769.' Do not argue that your package |
| 23 |
>> exceeds the limit only by few bytes -- even if it gets close to the |
| 24 |
>> limit, then it means it's way too large. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> I just want to voice my opinion on this: as a developer, this policy |
| 27 |
> is a royal pain in the ass. |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> I would ask the council to please increase this limit to at least 100 |
| 30 |
> KiB, preferably more. |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
As a user I would like to ask everyone involved to stick to the 32kB |
| 33 |
limit so that we (as in everyone) don't have to fetch megabytes of |
| 34 |
patches we'll never use, just because someone was lazy. |
Archives