On 12/02/26 at 23:30 +0100, intrigeri wrote: > Hi, > > Lucas Nussbaum (2026-02-12): > > I added some statistics about fetishism^Hpristine-tar usage (SCNR) on > > https://udd.debian.org/cgi-bin/dep14stats.cgi > > Thanks! > > > 72.8% of packages with a working salsa project have a pristine-tar > > branch. > > While the mere existence of a pristine-tar branch strongly suggests > the packaging has at least used pristine-tar at some point in history, > it does not necessary mean it *currently* uses pristine-tar. > > As a data point, this week I've converted a package to a pure-Git > workflow, so it won't use the pristine-tar branch anymore. But I have > no strong incentive to delete that branch on Salsa, so I plan to leave > it alone, just in case someone may find it useful. > > I doubt this makes a big difference to the results right now. But *if* > more and more packages migrate away from pristine-tar, I understand > these stats simply won't reflect this evolution, and the numbers > *might* get more and more misleading to readers who interpret these > numbers as a gauge of current popularity. Does this make sense? > > If there's a good way to improve this at some point, it would be great. > > In the meantime, what about making the phrasing on the webpage reflect > this reality better than the current "N packages […] use > pristine-tar", so future readers of dep14stats.cgi are better equipped > to interpret the data? For example: "use pristine-tar, or have used it > in the past".
Hi, I improved the wording, thanks! It would be interesting to check the tarball generated from the vcs-git repo against the orig tarball in the archive. That would be a nice addition to debaudit.debian.net. Lucas
