Re: dpkg-sig support wanted?
Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt <he@debian.org> writes:
> Jeroen van Wolffelaar <jeroen@wolffelaar.nl> writes:
>> On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 04:50:02PM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
>>> As I'm responsible for most of dpkg-sig's code (and planned to do some
>>> more work in the next two months) I'd like to know if anyone cares about
>>> using these binary signatures or if I can invest my time into something
>>> that's a bit more satisfying (== non-Debian stuff). As the ftp-masters
>>> and the dpkg maintainers seem to have no interest in the whole thing,
>>> I'm beginning to doubt that it's sensible to work on dpkg-sig.
>> Just to provide some statistics about dpkg-sig usage, as I got curious
>> about it too:
>>
>> In the archive, 525 out of 283283 .deb's are dpkg-sig'd (0.19%).
>
> Of these 283283 debs, only ~1/9 (1 of 11 archs - packages that are
> arch: all, that's only an assumption, correct me if i'm wrong) are
> directly uploaded by developers. About 1/4 of the pool should be woody
> packages (which was released before dpkg-sig). So we get 283283 * 1/9 *
> 3/4, which gives us about 23606 packages, which means that 525 are about
> 2.25%. Regarding the fact that dpkg-sig is not actively advertised
> because support in dak and dpkg is still missing, that's not *too* bad.
>
> Marc
Subtract all sarge debs as signed debs were unwanted for that in fear
of some unknown breakage. Further subtract all packages without upload
since sarge.
Gosh, the percentage keeps on rising. :)
MfG
Goswin
Reply to: