Andreas Jochens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 05-Aug-21 03:58, Wouter Verhelst wrote: >> - must have successfully compiled 98% of the archive's source (excluding >> arch-specific packages) > > It is not possible to build 98% of the unmodified source packages from > the 'unstable' distribution. This is true for any port including i386.
That depends on how you count. Lets look at sarge: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/var/lib/apt/lists% grep "^Package:" amd64.debian.net_debian_dists_sarge_main_source_Sources | wc -l 8532 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/var/lib/apt/lists% grep-dctrl "" -n -s Package,Source amd64.debian.net_debian_dists_sarge_main_binary-amd64_Packages | paste -s -d" \n" | while read PKG SRC; do if [ -z "$SRC" ]; then echo $PKG; else echo $SRC; fi; done | sort -u | wc -l 8370 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/var/lib/apt/lists% echo $((8370/8532.0*100)) 98.101265822784811 Debian-amd64 sarge is over the 98% mark. If counting _all_ sources on the other hand we get: $((8370/9394.0*100)) == 89.099% Debian i386 has (again counting all sources) 98.36% build. The 98% cut has to be done using Package-arch-specific and the sources Architecture field to be fair. The amount of architecture specific sources should not alter the % compiled for other archs. With that 98% does not seem that unreasonable. On the other hand I feel that a port with even 80% of all packages available can be very very usefull. Even a port without any X can be usefull if that lack of software is intentional and not just inability to build something. Ports should have some disgression at what they put into Packages-arch-specific or Not-for-us. > For the current 'unstable' distribution it is not even possible to build > 90% of the unmodified source packages because of the ongoing transitions > and the high number of FTBFS bugs. > > I followed the 'unstable' distribution since the beginning of 2004 > with private buildds on different architectures and I recreated the > complete 'unstable' distribution many times from scratch by rebuilding > every package. It was hardly ever possible to build more than 95% > of the unmodified source packages from 'unstable' at any given point in > time, even when the number of FTBFS bugs was much lower than it is now. > > I understand that the amd64 port has to be recompiled for the > final inclusion into the official archive because the current amd64 > packages have not been built by DDs. But currently more than 10% of > the unmodified source packages from 'unstable' FTBFS. It will likely > take many months, if not years, for amd64 to get anywhere near to the > requested 98% mark again. > > Will the amd64 port be rejected if more than two percent of the > unmodified source packages from 'unstable' fail to compile? > > If not, what does the 98% rule really mean? Maybe the 98% rule was just a look at http://buildd.debian.org/stats/graph-week-big.png or http://buildd.debian.org/stats/graph2-week-big.png and then picking a number so that the archs they want in are above it. :) > Regards > Andreas Jochens MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
