[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

how many packages are there?



I've been trying to figure out just how many packages are in the potato
release, and I'm getting conflicting reports.

wc -l Maintainers  (picked up today from the indices directory)

says there are 5439 entries in this file, maintained by:

383 "persons" (which includes such persons as the QA group ;-)

as indicated by:

awk '{ print $2 }' Maintainers |sort |uniq |wc -l

But:

wc -l override.potato

reports some 4383 packages. (This was the source I expected to report the
largest number, as it should represent all packages from all ports,
including obsolete ones. The report from the Maintainers file seems to
contradict this.)

Are these two files in sync?

Now, if I do:

grep "age:" Packages-Master-i386 |wc -l

I get only 1861 packages.

Do the unique packages in all the other architectures amount to more than
all the Intel packages combined? Where are all the "other" packages?

Just to add yet another different number into the mix, I did:

find /debian/dists/potato/main/src -name "*.dsc" |wc -l

and got the number 2667.

Now this is a decidedly low number, as each and every source package
creates at least one binary package, and many source packages create more
than one binary package.

The implication of these numbers is that some 2600 source packages create
some 4300 binary packages. Which yields an average binary to source ratio
of just under 2. This seems a bit extreme, although considering the number
of libraries, and the fact that each one had a -dev package, maybe not.

Can someone shed some light on these discrepancies and tell me just how
many packages Debian will deliver with Potato!

Waiting is,

Dwarf
--
_-_-_-_-_-   Author of "The Debian Linux User's Guide"  _-_-_-_-_-_-

aka   Dale Scheetz                   Phone:   1 (850) 656-9769
      Flexible Software              11000 McCrackin Road
      e-mail:  dwarf@polaris.net     Tallahassee, FL  32308

_-_-_-_-_-_- See www.linuxpress.com for more details  _-_-_-_-_-_-_-


Reply to: