Hi Lucas, Thank you for collecting the statistics.
Lucas Nussbaum <lu...@debian.org> ezt írta (időpont: 2025. máj. 11., V, 22:36): > > On 09/05/25 at 12:43 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > I would love to see data about the actual acceptance of DEP-14 among > > packages in the archive: my feeling is that it is currently being a bit > > ignored by maintainers and teams (but maybe I'm wrong). > > I started working on a salsa importer in UDD. It still needs some > polishing and Web pages to expose interesting results, but it already > provides the following information: > > * 37641 source packages in trixie/main > * of which 36083 declare a VCS URL > * of which 34644 point to a salsa project > * of which 34370 point to a salsa project that exists > > .. grouped by salsa group: > salsa_group | count > --------------+------- > debian | 4255 > perl-team | 3963 > rust-team | 2970 > python-team | 2703 > go-team | 2338 > js-team | 1677 > r-pkg-team | 1159 > java-team | 1089 > ruby-team | 1054 > haskell-team | 957 > > .. grouped by default branch: > default_branch | count > -----------------+------- > master | 24467 > debian/master | 2569 > debian/latest | 2480 > debian/sid | 2160 > debian | 561 > debian/main | 522 > debian/unstable | 512 > debian/epoxy | 450 > main | 338 > debian-unstable | 117 > > Looking at the DEP-14 compliance of the above: > default_branch | count > -----------------+------- > master | 24467 ; not DEP-14-compliant > debian/master | 2569 ; not DEP-14-compliant, but shares the idea of > using <vendor>/ branches > debian/latest | 2480 ; DEP-14-OK > debian/sid | 2160 ; DEP-14-OK but not recommended (debian/unstable > would be) > debian | 561 ; not DEP-14-compliant > debian/main | 522 ; not DEP-14-compliant, see debian/main > debian/unstable | 512 ; DEP-14-OK > debian/epoxy | 450 ; not DEP-14-compliant (this is used by the > openstack team) > main | 338 ; not DEP-14-compliant > debian-unstable | 117 ; not DEP-14-compliant > > So that leaves 2480+2160+512=5152 source packages using a DEP-14 default > branch. While this is accurate considering the latest DEP-14 version, it should be noted that the first DEP-14 draft allowed 'master' as the main branch for native packages and up to 2020-11-29 DEP-14 recommended debian/master instead of debian/latest. Earlier adopters (like me) thus probably don't follow the latest changes to DEP-14 because what's the point of renaming a perfectly fine branch. Also git-buildpackage's defaults probably play a bigger role in choosing branch names. DEP-14 starts becoming useful in practice when the packaging repository starts targeting other releases than just unstable/sid and until that point gbp's default branch names are just fine and clear enough for potential contributors. Cheers, Balint > > They are maintained by the following salsa groups: > salsa_group | count_dep14 | count_total > ------------------------+-------------+------------- > go-team | 1491 | 2338 > debian | 980 | 4255 > python-team | 333 | 2703 > gnome-team | 321 | 329 > perl-team | 268 | 3963 > php-team | 211 | 268 > multimedia-team | 152 | 606 > homeassistant-team | 120 | 435 > science-team | 74 | 856 > DebianOnMobile-team | 74 | 83 > pkg-octave-team | 72 | 73 > js-team | 55 | 1677 > games-team | 53 | 506 > ruby-team | 51 | 1054 > fonts-team | 48 | 393 > lxqt-team | 48 | 48 > swaywm-team | 27 | 31 > virtualsquare-team | 26 | 26 > java-team | 25 | 1089 > > So, it looks like among the largest packaging teams, only the go team, > the gnome team, and the php team have significantly adopted DEP-14. > > Note that this is not a criticism of DEP-14, only an attempt at > providing numbers about DEP-14 adoption. > > Lucas >
