>>>>> "Mo" == Mo Zhou <lu...@debian.org> writes:
>> (result of running the training program with specific input data,
>> if I understand correctly?)
Mo> Yes, correct.
>> The source package would need to Build-Depend on the training
>> program and its inputs, but in general there would not need to be
>> a normal Depends.
Mo> I see. The idea is that an ELF binary (ML model) doesn't have to
Mo> Depend on it's compiler (training program) and source (input
Mo> data). This makes sense to me and the "Suggest:" restriction
Mo> may be better.
Mo> The "Suggest:" relationship implicitly hints the user about the
Mo> following questions: 1. what is the binary blob
Mo> /usr/.../foobar.ml-model installed by the package foobar?
Mo> 2. where did these digits come from? 3. how can I well
Mo> understand how this model is created by the original author?
Mo> 4. how do I obtain a similar model with my own dataset? etc.
As a user, if I want to understand how some binary thing gets created,
I'll
apt source <package_containing_binary_thing>
rather than looking at suggests.
In cases where the model is created in the build process, I think
build-depends is better than suggests.
In cases where the model is not recreated, but where software in Debian
could create the model, I think a README file is better than a package
relationship.
--Sam
