Re: Discussion - non-free software removal
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 05:36:45AM -0500, Susan Kleinmann wrote:
> Also, taking your suggestion that one should consider source packages
> instead of binary packages, I suspect that package-splitting has become
> a lot more common than it was in the days of slink, so a more detailed
> analysis [...]
By source then:
main contrib non-free %main %contrib %non-free
bo 692 22 69 88.4 2.8 8.8
hamm 1115 78 183 81.0 5.7 13.3
slink 1580 77 225 84.0 4.1 12.0
potato 2647 97 220 89.3 3.3 7.4
woody 5231 159 208 93.4 2.8 3.7
--------
sarge 6089 191 221 93.7 2.9 3.4
sid 6466 219 233 93.5 3.2 3.4
> I tried using a simple algorithm to count the number of source packages,
> but the true picture looks like it's sufficiently complex that some
> hand-work is needed.
It probably is, but the true picture for main will almost certainly be
more complicated in similar ways, so it's probably not overly important
as far as gathering statistics goes.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do.''
Reply to: