On 11/01/2015 09:33 PM, Josh Triplett wrote: > Thomas Goirand wrote: >> But good luck to teach good practices upstream. See Ross's reply: 120 >> packages are depending on this. > > It's more than that. Given tooling that doesn't have excessive overhead > for small packages, why call such packages "bad practices" in the first > place?
It's not the package which is a bad practice, here, the maintainer is only dealing with upstream. What's a bad practice is creating a library for 2 lines of code. Upstream should have tried to integrate this function into a bigger library with more functionality to make it more useful. >> Though it is also my view that packaging tiny stuff shouldn't be a >> problem. If it is, then we should fix whatever it is that is problematic >> in Debian infra. > > Agreed. > > Let's consider what overhead exists for a Debian package [...] IMO, the reasoning should start from the *infra* part, ie, what is taking a tall on dak / britney2 [/ others?], and what part of the infra is too slow. In some case, rethinking these could work, on others, just throwing more compute power at it could also do... I don't know the Debian infra enough to be able to tell. Though where I work (ie: nearly unlimited resources from the cloud) every resource issue is fixable... Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo)
