Hi Andrius, Am Tue, Jun 07, 2022 at 10:31:23AM +0300 schrieb Andrius Merkys: > >> On 2022-06-06 22:37, Mohd Bilal wrote: > >>> I have added an autopkgtest for busco[1] as mentioned in bug report[2]. > >>> The license for the test data needs to be added. I have opened an > >>> issue[3] upstream asking for clarification. Requesting someone to review > >>> my changes . > > > > Cool. Just uploaded after checking. Upload permissions granted in > > case further uploads might be necessary. > > Erm. Was not the original intent to wait for the upstream clarification > of the license of this data? And what about mention in debian/copyright?
Aaaargh, I was to much concentratet on the second part of the mail. :-( > If the ftpmaster reviews were properly done for every upload, this > upload should be rejected, IMHO. Well, right. It will not come to ftpmaster inspection as multi-source tarballs are not supposed to pass new. > >>> [1] - https://salsa.debian.org/med-team/busco > >>> [2] - https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1010653 > >>> [3] - https://gitlab.com/ezlab/busco/-/issues/566 > >> > >> Thanks a lot for pushing forward with this. Can you tell me why you > >> decided to add 'debian-tests-data' component instead of just putting > >> test files somewhere under debian/? IMO this unnecessarily complicates > >> the source package, but I would like to hear other opinions too. > > > > This is perfectly in line with the request of ftpmaster to keep the > > debian/ dir "sensibly" small and I'm pretty sure ftpmaster would have > > been rejected the package if the data would have been under debian/ > > (we had such cases in the past). There are borderline cases where > > only a "few" data files are needed but in this case the debian-tests-data > > tarball is even an order of magnitude larger than the actual source > > package - so this case is pretty clear. > > > > Its actually also not that complicated and documented in Debian Med > > policy[4] (thanks to Nilesh). > > To me this looks like an intricate evasion of unclear policy > requirements. 26 MB of uncompressed textual data is "sensibly" small to > me. Are there any actual guidelines from ftpmaster on what is not > "sensible"? The only guideline *I* know is that the limit is way lower than you think. :-( I've seen rejects for **way** lower data sets - in this case even my gut feeling says here a multi-source tarball is the right way to go. > > You probably did not followed all GSoC mails we exchanged with Bilal > > but it was one of the first lessons we teached him. ;-) > > If they were exchanged in debian-med@, I clearly missed them. Yes, it was on [email protected]. Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de
