[Pkg-javascript-devel] node-katex_0.10.2+dfsg-2_amd64.changes REJECTED

[Sean Whitton]

[speaking as an FTP team member, not ctte member, though this is *not*
an official statement made on behalf of the whole FTP team]

Hello Jonas,

On Sun 21 Jun 2020 at 10:48AM +02, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:

> Could you please elaborate a bit on your opinion that the introduced
> split into katex and libjs-katex is unnecessary?

I have not looked at this particular package, but here is what I
understand to be the team's consensus: the FTP team wants to see some
technical purpose which is served by the binary package split, to
justify taking up more space in the Packages file.  We will also object
if this technical purpose could be easily served by something other than
a binary package split (e.g. by adding Provides: entries).

So I would assume that the FTP team member who processed this upload
couldn't see how a technical purpose was being served by the split.  If
Pirate could explain some technical purpose that was missed that would
be helpful.

I don't think that the bar is particularly high here.  Even if an FTP
team member wouldn't themselves solve the problem by introducing a
binary package split, if it's clear that the maintainer has consciously
chosen to use a binary package split to solve a problem and that's a
reasonable way to go about solving the problem, we'll sign off on it.

-- 
Sean Whitton