On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 07:13:53PM +0200, Peter Bonivart wrote: > Well, to identify which packages should go into which tier we could > use another suggested topic of mine - download stats.
Those stats might be skewed in terms of which packages get frequently updated, not neccessarily in terms of importance. And then there is a relative definition of "importance". Does it mean "popular", or does it mean "critical to other programs"? Or some combination of both? As far as "importance" goes, I think a fairly basic and concrete measure would be, the number of dependants that a package has. eg: gtk2 has around 100. Thus, it is incontrovertibly an "important package" ;-) > Yes, but that usually only happens when we already have a problem and > the current maintainer doesn't respond, that's what I want to avoid. > > To me, it would be good to identify the most critical packages and > allocate resources in the form of active maintainers to them but if > the community doesn't agree that's fine with me. Topics were asked for > and I provided a few. I actually agree that it is important to *identify* critical packages. I just dont think we can go around making statements that they "must" be maintained in a particular manner. btw, if you'd like to spend some time putting together a dynamic page with a dependancy-ranked chart of packages, correlated with which ones are non-maintained, I'd be happy to email you more about how to access our various databases with that information. _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers
