Dnia czwartek, 17 lipca 2008, Mariusz Mazur napisał: > B) We can't save the world. Having more and more > pld-specific patches makes it harder to maintain PLD so in specific cases > it might make more sense to just give up and do what everybody else does.
Some stats (that's HEAD): [EMAIL PROTECTED] SPECS]$ ls |grep spec$|wc -l 13023 [EMAIL PROTECTED] SPECS]$ grep ^Patch -r .|wc -l 11841 [EMAIL PROTECTED] SPECS]$ egrep '^%patch|:%patch' -r .|wc -l 11470 [EMAIL PROTECTED] SPECS]$ grep -c ^Patch -r .|grep -c ':0$' 8226 This means 37% of our spec files are patched with each of those speces having almost 1.5 patch on average. And now the same stats but only for packages that are currently found in 3.0 (both in main and in ready/test/updates/whatever; note the list isn't perfect). [EMAIL PROTECTED] THSPECS]$ ls *.spec|wc -l 5761 [EMAIL PROTECTED] THSPECS]$ grep ^Patch -r .|wc -l 5600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] THSPECS]$ egrep '^%patch|:%patch' -r .|wc -l 5445 [EMAIL PROTECTED] THSPECS]$ grep -c ^Patch -r .|grep -c ':0$' 3856 This means that Th contains ~45% of potential (in pure theory) packages available in PLD. Additionally: 67% of Th packages are patched with also almost 1.5 patches on average. At http://ep09.pld-linux.org/~mmazur/pld/thlist.txt is a list of spec files I've used, should anyone be interested in, dunno, maybe generating the same numbers for the past two years (monthly intervals) and plotting that? -- Judge others by their intentions and yourself by your results. Guy Kawasaki Education is an admirable thing, but it is well to remember from time to time that nothing that is worth knowing can be taught. Oscar Wilde _______________________________________________ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
