Re: Flame against non-free burning, time to think.
Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 08:48:40PM -0500, Jim Penny wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 08:03:53PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > It hasn't so far. We have added packages to non-free faster than we've
> > > been getting rid of them.[1]
> > Anthony> total main contrib non-free %main %contrib %non-free
> > Anthony> bo 1188 980 31 115 82.5 2.6 9.7
> > Anthony> hamm 1852 1524 101 227 82.3 5.5 12.3
> > Anthony> slink 2664 2269 97 298 85.2 3.6 11.2
> > Anthony> potato 4305 3889 123 293 90.3 2.9 6.8
> > Anthony> woody 8766 8291 203 272 94.6 2.3 3.1
> > Anthony> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> > Anthony> sarge 10283 9734 257 292 94.7 2.5 2.8
> > Anthony> sid 11168 10555 306 307 94.5 2.7 2.7
> >
> > Odd. I would say
> > 1) it has been essentially unchanged since slink.
>
> Well, if one wants to redefine "grown" as "essentally unchanged", yes.
Huh? He did say since slink...
> > 2) it has slowly been trending down. (with a bubble up in sid)
>
> 115 < 227 < 298 < 307
298 > 293 > 272
> Packages that were unreleasable presumably weren't counted in the
> distribution release totals. That the number of non-free packages in
> unstable is larger than the number of non-free packages in any release
> is instructive.
For woody, it might mean lots of them weren't built for all releasable
archs. Hardly an indicative sign since non-free is not autobuilt.
Reply to: