Bill Allombert:
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 03:17:18PM +0200, Ximin Luo wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 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 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
> [..]
> 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 
more accuracy.

>> I'd be happy to submit a patch for the popcon backend, but I could
>> only find the client source code here:
>> 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!


GPG: ed25519/56034877E1F87C35
GPG: rsa4096/1318EFAC5FBBDBCE

Reproducible-builds mailing list

Reply via email to