On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 02:40:29 -0400 Scott Kitterman <deb...@kitterman.com> wrote: > Unless someone can figure out an actual resolvable controversy, I don't seen > any point in bothering other FTP team members with this. To the extent > anything is being requested, it seems like it's infeasible (write down exact > rules for what too small to split into multiple binaries would be and then > have all FTP team members apply the standard perfectly).
I don't think ruby-task-list was rejected because the new binary was small. In the reject mail it was already acknowledged. "While the (compiled) javascript part is quite large (8k), this split is only done to save one dependency (either ruby or nodejs) from being installed. We've talked about this." ruby-task-list depends on not just ruby, ruby | ruby-interpreter, ruby-rack, ruby-activesupport, ruby-html-pipeline So if I remove these dependencies from ruby-task-list, then every package depending on ruby-task-list will have to add these dependencies themselves. I don't think its reasonable to expect every package depending on ruby-task-list to already depend on these packages too. My contention is that ruby-task-list case is not same as node-autoprefixer and it should be allowed to create two separate binary packages targeting ruby and nodejs environments. -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
