On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 11:17:02PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Don't forget to also filter out non-free (or contrib sometimes)
> packages that maintainers no longer build, packages that are not for
> etch, package that have never been build and maybe even all packages
> with FTBFS bugs and patches.
non-free isn't in w-b, so is already filtered.
never-been-built is filtered out of the graph showing how well the arch is
keeping up. It is (deliberately) not filtered out of the graph showing how
much of the archive is built for the arch. The latter was not the graph I
was looking at when commenting.
Packages with FTBFS bugs should be either NMUed by porters (if the failures
are arch-specific), or kicked out of unstable (if not arch-specific and left
unfixed). Either way, when comparing with other architectures common build
failures will clearly not show as counting against any particular arch.
> Wouldn't it be much more meaningfull to go through the update excuses
> and count the number of packages kept out of testing due to each arch
> (or potential number for non-blocking archs)?
We do this too.
m68k doesn't look so hot by this metric either.
Out of dates holding up testing:
14 i386
24 amd64
64 s390
68 sparc
77 powerpc
86 mipsel
98 mips
109 hppa
111 ia64
115 alpha
124 arm
191 m68k
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature