Re: A new metric for source package importance in ports

2013-11-27 Thread Dmitrijs Ledkovs
On 28 November 2013 00:04, Steven Chamberlain ste...@pyro.eu.org wrote:
 Hi josch!

 On 27/11/13 17:58, Johannes Schauer wrote:
 http://mister-muffin.de/p/Gid8.txt

 One can see that now the amount of source packages which is needed to build 
 the
 rest of the archive is only 383.

 So, there are 383 packages that share the same, maximum value (in this
 case 11657) in the second column?

 Does anybody see enough value in these numbers for source package importance 
 in
 the light of bootstrapping Debian (either for a new port or for rebuilding 
 the
 archive from scratch)?

 I find the list of 383 packages interesting, at least.  I think this
 closure is what I had in mind[0] for regular testing of ports'
 toolchains and reproducibility of builds.  Because each Debian port
 depends in some indirect way on the authenticity of these packages.  And
 likewise any toolchain bugs are most critical here.  I just didn't think
 there would be so many packages.

 Does the list vary by architecture?  I see many odd things in here such
 as 'systemd' and 'redhat-cluster' which would be unavailable if trying
 to bootstrap a non-Linux port, for example.

 I also find it interesting to see openjdk-7 listed but not gcj;  or even
 gcc-4.8.  Was this computed for jessie or sid?

I guess implicit relationships are not considered: build-essential
build-dependencies, and essential dependencies. I would expect for
packages in those to sets have the highest rank, since,
hypothetically, all packages in debian build-depend  depend on those.

Regards,

Dmitrijs.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-sparc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/CANBHLUiifmR+_keS3eSQa_b3_CfZ_56o9vBRR8p2SeY=hy9...@mail.gmail.com



Re: Bug#730258: please add arch-specific BTS tags

2013-11-23 Thread Dmitrijs Ledkovs
On 23 November 2013 21:53, Don Armstrong d...@debian.org wrote:
 On Sat, 23 Nov 2013, Ivo De Decker wrote:
 During a discussion about architecture qualification, the release team
 concluded that it would be interesting to have a better way to track
 architecture-specific bugs. It would be nice to have BTS tags for each
 architecture that is currently in the archive. It might also make
 sense to have tags for the architectures on debian-ports, to be able
 to filter issues about these easily.

 This sounds reasonable; are only tags required, or do we need more
 infrastructure than that?

 These are the list of ports that I see:

 amd64
 armel
 armhf
 hurd-i386
 i386
 ia64
 kfreebsd-amd64
 kfreebsd-i386
 mips
 mipsel
 powerpc
 s390x
 sparc
 avr32
 sh

 What else am I missing? [I note that
 http://www.debian.org/ports/#portlist-released seems to have a
 reasonable list of ports, and
 http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/webwml/webwml/english/releases/sid/archive.data?view=markup
 has another; I'd like to reference a canonical location for ports
 (perhaps maintained by debian-ports or similar) so I don't have to
 figure out for myself which ports need a tag and what that tag should
 be, and which ports are just duplicates of other ports, and therefore
 don't need a tag.


There are 484 reports usertagged debian-...@lists.debian.org arm64.
Please consider including arm64 tag.

Regards,

Dmitrijs.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-sparc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/CANBHLUg0yh60VEh50NCbYK+nfs65F5x3jU6MFL+WEdqT=qz...@mail.gmail.com