Re: RFC for changes regarding NMU in developers reference (Was: ITN procedure?)
Hi Lucas,
Thank you for collecting the statistics.
Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@debian.org> ezt írta (időpont: 2025. máj. 11., V, 22:36):
>
> On 09/05/25 at 12:43 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > I would love to see data about the actual acceptance of DEP-14 among
> > packages in the archive: my feeling is that it is currently being a bit
> > ignored by maintainers and teams (but maybe I'm wrong).
>
> I started working on a salsa importer in UDD. It still needs some
> polishing and Web pages to expose interesting results, but it already
> provides the following information:
>
> * 37641 source packages in trixie/main
> * of which 36083 declare a VCS URL
> * of which 34644 point to a salsa project
> * of which 34370 point to a salsa project that exists
>
> .. grouped by salsa group:
> salsa_group | count
> --------------+-------
> debian | 4255
> perl-team | 3963
> rust-team | 2970
> python-team | 2703
> go-team | 2338
> js-team | 1677
> r-pkg-team | 1159
> java-team | 1089
> ruby-team | 1054
> haskell-team | 957
>
> .. grouped by default branch:
> default_branch | count
> -----------------+-------
> master | 24467
> debian/master | 2569
> debian/latest | 2480
> debian/sid | 2160
> debian | 561
> debian/main | 522
> debian/unstable | 512
> debian/epoxy | 450
> main | 338
> debian-unstable | 117
>
> Looking at the DEP-14 compliance of the above:
> default_branch | count
> -----------------+-------
> master | 24467 ; not DEP-14-compliant
> debian/master | 2569 ; not DEP-14-compliant, but shares the idea of
> using <vendor>/ branches
> debian/latest | 2480 ; DEP-14-OK
> debian/sid | 2160 ; DEP-14-OK but not recommended (debian/unstable would be)
> debian | 561 ; not DEP-14-compliant
> debian/main | 522 ; not DEP-14-compliant, see debian/main
> debian/unstable | 512 ; DEP-14-OK
> debian/epoxy | 450 ; not DEP-14-compliant (this is used by the
> openstack team)
> main | 338 ; not DEP-14-compliant
> debian-unstable | 117 ; not DEP-14-compliant
>
> So that leaves 2480+2160+512=5152 source packages using a DEP-14 default
> branch.
While this is accurate considering the latest DEP-14 version, it
should be noted that the first DEP-14 draft allowed 'master' as the
main branch for native packages and up to 2020-11-29 DEP-14
recommended debian/master instead of debian/latest.
Earlier adopters (like me) thus probably don't follow the latest
changes to DEP-14 because what's the point of renaming a perfectly
fine branch.
Also git-buildpackage's defaults probably play a bigger role in
choosing branch names.
DEP-14 starts becoming useful in practice when the packaging
repository starts targeting other releases than just unstable/sid and
until that point gbp's default branch names are just fine and clear
enough for potential contributors.
Cheers,
Balint
>
> They are maintained by the following salsa groups:
> salsa_group | count_dep14 | count_total
> ------------------------+-------------+-------------
> go-team | 1491 | 2338
> debian | 980 | 4255
> python-team | 333 | 2703
> gnome-team | 321 | 329
> perl-team | 268 | 3963
> php-team | 211 | 268
> multimedia-team | 152 | 606
> homeassistant-team | 120 | 435
> science-team | 74 | 856
> DebianOnMobile-team | 74 | 83
> pkg-octave-team | 72 | 73
> js-team | 55 | 1677
> games-team | 53 | 506
> ruby-team | 51 | 1054
> fonts-team | 48 | 393
> lxqt-team | 48 | 48
> swaywm-team | 27 | 31
> virtualsquare-team | 26 | 26
> java-team | 25 | 1089
>
> So, it looks like among the largest packaging teams, only the go team,
> the gnome team, and the php team have significantly adopted DEP-14.
>
> Note that this is not a criticism of DEP-14, only an attempt at
> providing numbers about DEP-14 adoption.
>
> Lucas
>
Reply to: