Re: dpkg-sig support wanted?
Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Jeroen van Wolffelaar <email@example.com> 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.
Subtract all sarge debs as signed debs were unwanted for that in fear
of some unknown breakage. Further subtract all packages without upload
Gosh, the percentage keeps on rising. :)