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

Re: Will the amd64 port be rejected because of the 98% rule?

Andreas Jochens <aj@andaco.de> writes:

> On 05-Aug-21 03:58, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>> - must have successfully compiled 98% of the archive's source (excluding
>>   arch-specific packages)
> It is not possible to build 98% of the unmodified source packages from 
> the 'unstable' distribution. This is true for any port including i386.

That depends on how you count.

Lets look at sarge:

mrvn@frosties:/var/lib/apt/lists% grep "^Package:" amd64.debian.net_debian_dists_sarge_main_source_Sources | wc -l

mrvn@frosties:/var/lib/apt/lists% grep-dctrl "" -n -s Package,Source amd64.debian.net_debian_dists_sarge_main_binary-amd64_Packages | paste -s -d"  \n" | while read PKG SRC; do if [ -z "$SRC" ]; then echo $PKG; else echo $SRC; fi; done | sort -u | wc -l

mrvn@frosties:/var/lib/apt/lists% echo $((8370/8532.0*100))

Debian-amd64 sarge is over the 98% mark. If counting _all_ sources on
the other hand we get:

$((8370/9394.0*100)) == 89.099%

Debian i386 has (again counting all sources) 98.36% build.

The 98% cut has to be done using Package-arch-specific and the sources
Architecture field to be fair. The amount of architecture specific
sources should not alter the % compiled for other archs. With that 98%
does not seem that unreasonable.

On the other hand I feel that a port with even 80% of all packages
available can be very very usefull. Even a port without any X can be
usefull if that lack of software is intentional and not just inability
to build something. Ports should have some disgression at what they
put into Packages-arch-specific or Not-for-us.

> For the current 'unstable' distribution it is not even possible to build 
> 90% of the unmodified source packages because of the ongoing transitions 
> and the high number of FTBFS bugs.
> I followed the 'unstable' distribution since the beginning of 2004
> with private buildds on different architectures and I recreated the
> complete 'unstable' distribution many times from scratch by rebuilding 
> every package. It was hardly ever possible to build more than 95% 
> of the unmodified source packages from 'unstable' at any given point in
> time, even when the number of FTBFS bugs was much lower than it is now.
> I understand that the amd64 port has to be recompiled for the
> final inclusion into the official archive because the current amd64
> packages have not been built by DDs. But currently more than 10% of
> the unmodified source packages from 'unstable' FTBFS. It will likely 
> take many months, if not years, for amd64 to get anywhere near to the 
> requested 98% mark again.
> Will the amd64 port be rejected if more than two percent of the 
> unmodified source packages from 'unstable' fail to compile? 
> If not, what does the 98% rule really mean? 

Maybe the 98% rule was just a look at
http://buildd.debian.org/stats/graph-week-big.png or
http://buildd.debian.org/stats/graph2-week-big.png and then picking a
number so that the archs they want in are above it. :)

> Regards
> Andreas Jochens


Reply to: