[Openstack-devel] nova_2013.1-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

[Thomas Goirand]

On 04/10/2013 05:00 PM, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> these are the contents of the nova-conductor binary:
> 
> -rw-r--r-- root/root       107 2013-04-10 05:43 ./etc/logrotate.d/nova-conductor
> -rwxr-xr-x root/root      2835 2013-04-09 06:33 ./etc/init.d/nova-conductor
> -rw-r--r-- root/root       751 2013-04-10 05:43 ./usr/share/man/man1/nova-conductor.1.gz
> -rwxr-xr-x root/root      1792 2013-04-10 05:43 ./usr/bin/nova-conductor
>                           ----
> subtotal:                 5485
> -rw-r--r-- root/root      8650 2013-04-09 06:33 ./usr/share/doc/nova-conductor/changelog.Debian.gz
> -rw-r--r-- root/root      3833 2013-04-09 06:33 ./usr/share/doc/nova-conductor/copyright
>                          -----
> total (all files):       17968
> 
> -rw-r--r-- root/root   1390786 2013-04-09 06:33 ./usr/share/doc/nova-conductor/changelog.gz
> 
> The upstream changelog is 77 times the size of the remaining files. If I didn't
> include the Debian changelog this would look even worse.
> 
> The same to applies to the other new binary packages (I did not check the others).
> 
> The upstream changelog should just be included in at most one binary package,
> for example either nova-doc or nova-common. With such a large changelog it is
> not useful to include it everywhere. I'll reject the package for this reason.

Hi Ansgar,

Thanks for this short review time. Short delays are really appreciated,
I can see that you guys are really making an effort here.

I have removed upstream changelog as per your request and re-uploaded.

However, even though I really appreciate the review of the FTP masters,
I wonder if rejecting packages on this kind ground is in your mandate.
At most, this would deserve a severity wishlist type of bug in the BTS,
certainly not rejecting the package. It is also to be noted that
previous versions (eg: 2012.2.x) has the "problem" (if this can even be
classified as a problem).

> I'm also wondering if it's really required to split everything into seperate
> packages? There's only only a few kilobytes of content in each package and they
> share the same dependencies as well.

Again, you aren't supposed to do this kind of technical review. It also
clearly shows that you don't understand how OpenStack works, which is to
be expected: I don't expect the FTP masters to understand every single
package in the archive, and certainly not something with the complexity
of OpenStack). In this case, yes, we really need multiple packages,
since each of them is carrying a daemon and its associated service, as
JD explained.

Please limit yourself to what you are supposed to do: license checks.
For any other type of problems, especially this kind, we have the BTS,
or even the PKG OpenStack list if you prefer, and I warmly welcome you
to use them. Thanks.

Thomas