New optification issues in extras-testing

[Andrew Flegg]

On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 19:49, Till Harbaum / Lists <lists at harbaum.org> wrote:
> Am Dienstag 29 Dezember 2009 schrieb Andrew Flegg
>>   * you maintain both libgoocanvas3 and osm2go
>
> Still this would require additional work i'd like to avoid.

Well, the creation of "debian/optify" containing the one word "auto"
shouldn't be *too* much work.

>>   * neither are optified (according to the comments)
> Osm2go is of course optified, otherwise it wouldn't already be
> in extras. Just the stuff the system needs symlinks for is still
> in rootfs as i really think this excessive symlinking is ugly as hell.

I entirely agree! maemo-optification is a HIDEOUS hack (the thread
where /opt was unveiled contains my thoughts); but it's the easiest
way to solve the problem for authors who don't want to do too much
work, and the most expedient for Nokia as they realised the problem
*far* too late.

>>   * I *imagine* there aren't lots of other apps depending on
>>     libgoocanvas3 which have been let through QA
> Xournal?

OK. Unfortunately, the packages interface doesn't let you see reverse
dependencies ATM.

>> ...this would seem to fall on to your shoulders. The STRONG
>> recommendation is that EVERYTHING is optified, and getting pedantic
>> about the numbers when you control both halves of the application
>> stack seems a little churlish. After all, someone wanting to be
>> difficult could split their app into 500 2KB packages which depend on
>> each other :-)
> Then why do you talk about a 500kB limit if you in fact want _everything_
> in /opt? What's the point of giving hard numbers and then stating that
> you want something different?

Who is this "you"? Do you see my name on the comments page?[1]

> Why should i? I think the 500k per package limit is fine and neither of
> my two packages exceeds it. There is a rule, i am following it and that's it.
> If you don't like the rule, then change it. If you think my interpretation
> of the rule is valid but not what it intends to say, then re-phrase the
> rule to become clear. If you want to do neither: Accept my interpretation.

Why the confrontational approach? Why this "you sort it out" attitude?

> That's the moment where i'll have to deal with it. Not before. As i said
> above: I think the current 500k limit per package is just fine, so for me
> this is just an unnecessary hurdle.

OK, so when that switches to automatic, can we have it in writing that
you won't be on this list complaining about "us" changing the rules
and breaking your packages? Of course, one *hope's* it'll work for
libgoocanvas3 or osm2go, but it wouldn't work for Python (due to the
way it uses readlink during library determination), so the odds are it
not working on *all* packages.

Cheers,

Andrew

[1] I'm fed up of being castigated by a small majority in this community
    for trying to help people understand the actions of others.

-- 
Andrew Flegg -- mailto:andrew at bleb.org  |  http://www.bleb.org/