On 2019-08-13 01:00, Paul Wise wrote: > On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 8:45 AM Sam Hartman wrote: > >> 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. > > Personally, I'd like to see Policy specify a standard mechanism that > people could use to indicate to debian/rules that they want to > automatically rebuild *everything* from source, not matter what the > cost is.
This makes sense as the official policy doesn't cover non-standard d/rules targets. How about this one: * For a source package that produce binary package containing ML models, it's encouraged to write a "reproduce-original-model" that may e.g. download a dataset from internet and redo the same procedure to produce the original model. It's "encouraged" because some models involve complex manual steps that a random developer can hardly understand, e.g. https://github.com/tesseract-ocr/tesseract/wiki/TrainingTesseract See my another mail sent out several minutes ago. In that mail maintainers are required to provide necessary information about the distributed ML model in README.Debian .
