On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 11:32:21AM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: >... > Reduced size in the archive: Avoids multiple identical copies of library > source code >...
I remember the 1990s when archive size was a problem, but a few years ago we had the first file > 2 GB in the archive (AFAIR an .orig.tar.gz) and that was not a problem except for some fast fix needed somewhere for files > INT_MAX. > Reduced complexity of APT: Avoids replicated packaging metadata > > Avoids certain types of impossible-to-satisfy scenarios: >... > Yes, I am aware that the Rust team packages arch-all code as arch-any > packages, but I am unaware that their reasoning is well documented > anywhere. >... A scarce resource is human time. There are several people who know how Rust packages in Debian work. They can quickly make changes to any normal Rust package. If you package your Rust packages differently, then it becomes harder and more time-consuming if anyone else ever has to touch one of your packages (e.g. a security update for rust-rustls). When your packages are "better" than the normal packages in an ecosystem, you have low benefits when most packages in the ecosystem stay "worse", while having the high costs associated with having different ways of packaging in the ecosystem. Better benefits and fewer costs would be if you try to convince the ecosystem as a whole to change, and in any case use for your own packages whatever the ecosystem is doing. > - Jonas cu Adrian
