Otto Kekäläinen [13/Feb 10:19pm +08] wrote: > (dropping bug report from recipients) > >> > I added some statistics about fetishism^Hpristine-tar usage (SCNR) on >> > https://udd.debian.org/cgi-bin/dep14stats.cgi >> > >> > 72.8% of packages with a working salsa project have a pristine-tar >> > branch. >> > >> > Among salsa groups with more than 200 packages in testing, the following >> > have more than 80% of group-maintained packages that have a pristine-tar >> > branch: >> >> I would really appreciate knowing whether these branches are in use -- >> whether they have the most recent upstream versions imported to them. > > We could do a scan to see if gbp.conf has `pristine-tar = True`, > assuming only packages that have that configured in the package itself > will consistently be using it.
I think that field is often there but out-of-date. I know I've ignored it. > Another data point that comes to my mind is > https://debaudit.debian.net/orig-check/statistics showing 23239 > packages (58.60%) have a orig tarball that is bit-for-bit identical > with upstream tarball, suggesting they used pristine-tar in one way or > another. I don't believe that inference is valid. Re-using bit-for-bit identical upstream tarballs, and storing those tarballs on salsa using the pristine-tar tool, are not the same thing at all. -- Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
