On Thu, 27 May 2010, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > On 27/05/10 at 21:25 +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > > Package: qa.debian.org > > Severity: wishlist > > > > Hi, > > > > The graphs on http://upsilon.cc/~zack/stuff/dpkg-v3/ are quite > > interesting to follow the adoption of source format v3 in the archive. > > The service is using data from > > http://udd.debian.org/cgi-bin/dpkgformat.cgi ; would it be possible for > > that data to tell whether it's 1.0 implicitly or 1.0 because of > > debian/source/format? > > No: we use the Sources files as generated by ftpmasters, and that file > contain Format: 1.0 when no format has been explicitely specified in the > source package. > You might want to ask ftpmaster to provide that information in the > Sources file, but I'm not sure it makes sense.
Cluttering it just for a stat doesn't make sense, no. You can compute the difference between http://lintian.debian.org/tags/missing-debian-source-format.html (11811 packages according to http://lintian.debian.org/tags.html) vs 12309 on the stats page that would give 500 packages that would have selected 1.0 in debian/source/format but there might be some differences in the package set covered (non-free included or not, I believe udd includes it while lintian doesn't). I had requested a pedantic tag listing package thas put 1.0 in debian/source/format but Russ Alberry did not want it, it's too soon according to him. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Like what I do? Sponsor me: http://ouaza.com/wp/2010/01/05/5-years-of-freexian/ My Debian goals: http://ouaza.com/wp/2010/01/09/debian-related-goals-for-2010/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
