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

Re: A new metric for source package importance in ports

Instead of dwelling on this discovery, which is not productive, why not concentrate on what to do to improve Debian.

The analysis has shown faults. Has Debian stopped working?  Has the world crashed? 

The problems have been identified, the patches to address the issues are being evaluated and planned for retesting.

By January 15,2014, Debian, Ubuntu , SUSE13.1, Fedora, RedHat, and probably every distribution that has an old or recent kernel will be corrected.

So, whats the next topic?


Mr. Leslie Satenstein
An experienced Information Technology specialist.
Yesterday was a good day, today is a better day,
and tomorrow will be even better.

From: Dmitrijs Ledkovs <xnox@debian.org>
To: Steven Chamberlain <steven@pyro.eu.org>
Cc: Johannes Schauer <j.schauer@email.de>; Debian Release <debian-release@lists.debian.org>; debian-ports@lists.debian.org
Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 7:15 PM
Subject: Re: A new metric for source package importance in ports

On 28 November 2013 00:04, Steven Chamberlain <steven@pyro.eu.org> wrote:
> Hi josch!
> On 27/11/13 17:58, Johannes Schauer wrote:
>> http://mister-muffin.de/p/Gid8.txt
>> One can see that now the amount of source packages which is needed to build the
>> rest of the archive is only 383.
> So, there are 383 packages that share the same, maximum value (in this
> case 11657) in the second column?
>> Does anybody see enough value in these numbers for source package importance in
>> the light of bootstrapping Debian (either for a new port or for rebuilding the
>> archive from scratch)?
> I find the list of 383 packages interesting, at least.  I think this
> closure is what I had in mind[0] for regular testing of ports'
> toolchains and reproducibility of builds.  Because each Debian port
> depends in some indirect way on the authenticity of these packages.  And
> likewise any toolchain bugs are most critical here.  I just didn't think
> there would be so many packages.
> Does the list vary by architecture?  I see many odd things in here such
> as 'systemd' and 'redhat-cluster' which would be unavailable if trying
> to bootstrap a non-Linux port, for example.
> I also find it interesting to see openjdk-7 listed but not gcj;  or even
> gcc-4.8.  Was this computed for jessie or sid?

I guess implicit relationships are not considered: build-essential
build-dependencies, and essential dependencies. I would expect for
packages in those to sets have the highest rank, since,
hypothetically, all packages in debian build-depend & depend on those.



To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
[🔎] CANBHLUiifmR+_keS3eSQa_b3_CfZ_56o9vBRR8p2SeY=Hy9e9A@mail.gmail.com" target="_blank">http://lists.debian.org/[🔎] CANBHLUiifmR+_keS3eSQa_b3_CfZ_56o9vBRR8p2SeY=Hy9e9A@mail.gmail.com

Reply to: