Hi, Quoting peter green (2013-11-28 01:12:57) > One problem with these metrics is that you get source packages whose > importance is artifically inflated because of the way our source packages > work. If anything in a source package needs x then the whole source package > has to build-depend on x. Even if x is only needed for some perhipheral > functionlity that could easilly be removed in the event that x was > unavailable (either on a particular port or in general). In the case of > libraries there may be a binary dependency too for rarely used fuctionality. > > For example some of the mesa libraries drag in libwayland0 which means > wayland ends up with a very high importance even though afaict hardly > anyone uses it right now. > > Another big example is languages. Lots of packages build language > bindings for lots of languages dragging those languages into the > "important set". > > So these metrics are a good guide to what packages are unimportant > but to determine whether a package is really important or just > psuedo-important still requires human judgement.
Correct. The situation can be greatly improved once build profiles allow to mark build dependencies as "less important" or "non essential". cheers, josch -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-s390-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131128074506.2752.10616@hoothoot
