> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 03:17:18PM +0200, Ximin Luo wrote:
>> At Reproducible Builds we just added popcon stats to our issues page,
>> to help us better understand which issues to prioritise:
>> However, we work on source packages, but popcon data is based on
>> binary packages. This means that that page is currently very
>> inaccurate for some packages - for example it thinks "linux" has a
>> popcon score of 6.
> Hello Ximin,
> I could not find anywhere where we report that linux has 6 installs.
In http://popcon.debian.org/all-popcon-results.gz there is this line:
Package: linux 0 1 0 5
It looks like some people have an actual "linux" binary package installed,
which is confusing our scripts - we query python3-popcon with source package
names, but that module expects binary package names.
> Actually we provide two counts: from http://popcon.debian.org/
> The second set is probably close to what you want:
Whoops, yes I missed that previously. Yes, this should be a good approximation
for the set-union metric in "most" cases, and I can adjust our scripts to read
this instead. It would be best to have the proper metric in place though, for
>> I'd be happy to submit a patch for the popcon backend, but I could
>> only find the client source code here:
>> https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/popcon/ Could you let me know how I
>> could submit a patch for the backend?
> The backend is at the same place in the 'examples' subdirectory.
> But remember that the correspondance between source and binary packages
> change with time.
Understood, I'll work on that when I get some time. Thanks for the pointer!
Reproducible-builds mailing list