Re: update_excuses.html

[Jules Bean <jules@jellybean.co.uk>]

On Thu, Nov 29, 2001 at 05:08:32PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
> After taking a quick look at update_excuses I wondered what packages are
> the 'bottleneck' for advancements in testing. So I wrote a perl hack to
> extract all unsatisfied i386 dependencies from update_excuses and
> produce a overall count. It only consideres 'Valid candidates' which
> have such dependencies.
> 
> Here is the output for today.
> 
> 13	'guile-core'
> 7	'libsdl1.2'
> 7	'ocaml'
> 7	'glib1.3'
> 6	'heimdal'
> 4	'gnome-vfs'
> 4	'libgtop'
> 3	'libwmf'
> 3	'gal'
> 3	'libgeda'

And for kicks, here's the output of almost the same script, which
doesn't only consider valid candidates.

Rationale: the most common reason not to be a valid candidate is that
you're not up to date on other arches.  This is often (not always) a
transitory problem, so you get a picture of which libs are holding up
the most stuff this way:

123	'kdelibs'
23	'guile-core'
21	'glib1.3'
19	'gal'
19	'gnome-vfs'
11	'zope'
11	'kdebase'
10	'gtkhtml'
10	'linc'
8	'orbit2'

Note that gal finally compiled on mipsel last night, so gal will have
no reason not to go in: except that it might break packages, of
course.

Jules