Jonathan Dowland wrote: > On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 09:16:59PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > > "why" is because node (and other modern languages) make it easy to > > create a package for any particular bit of reusable code. That Debian > > fails to support that is Debian's problem, not upstream's. > > That's not a counter-argument to Steve's complaint. If we don't support > it, why are we uploading these packages?
We support it just fine for individual packages; we only have (minor) problems in aggregate many such packages are 1) we have far more metadata and boilerplate per package, such that a small package wastes a slightly less small amount of mirror space (though still quite small), and 2) because of (1), ftp-masters and folks on -devel sometimes (inconsistently) push back on such packages. (1) is something we should work on, and it's a mild argument against gratuitously packaging things that *aren't* part of the depends or build-depends of some specific package we want in Debian (as in this case where the "tape" package needs node-defined). However, whether we fix (1) or not, (2) needs to stop. It's completely ridiculous to go to an upstream and say "your package is tiny, could you combine it with other unrelated tiny packages to make a less tiny package?". And any package needed for the (recursive) build-depends or depends of a more substantial package should not get pushback based on small package size. - Josh Triplett
