On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 10:41:16AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> writes: > > On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 11:17:02PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > >> Don't forget to also filter out non-free (or contrib sometimes) > >> packages that maintainers no longer build, packages that are not for > >> etch, package that have never been build and maybe even all packages > >> with FTBFS bugs and patches. > > non-free isn't in w-b, so is already filtered. > http://unstable.buildd.net/buildd/m68k-all.txt > non-free/text/figlet_2.2.1-4: Installed [optional:out-of-date] > Previous state was Uploaded until 2004 Oct 14 09:25:22 > Just to name the first non-free entry. I've seen other states too. Well, looking at this file /now/, I see no packages listed that aren't in state Installed. And there are obviously a lot of other non-free packages not built for m68k. > >> Wouldn't it be much more meaningfull to go through the update excuses > >> and count the number of packages kept out of testing due to each arch > >> (or potential number for non-blocking archs)? > > We do this too. > > m68k doesn't look so hot by this metric either. > > Out of dates holding up testing: > > 14 i386 > > 24 amd64 > > 64 s390 > > 68 sparc > > 77 powerpc > > 86 mipsel > > 98 mips > > 109 hppa > > 111 ia64 > > 115 alpha > > 124 arm > > 191 m68k > Can you put those numbers somewhere on a daily basis and maybe make a > graph? Given that they merely confirm what the graphs were already telling us, I don't think it's worth the effort. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature