Matthew Palmer <mpalmer <at> debian.org> writes: > On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 03:15:58AM +0000, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: > > undisputed: essentially all users are on i386 clearly dominating all other > > arches, with a fraction of users in maybe two, three, four other arches --- > > and comparitively nobody in the other fringe arches we keep around for no > > good reason. And I still believe it delays our releases. As you say, there > > You can believe in the tooth fairy, too, but it doesn't make it true. Since > you're trying to convince others to join your tooth fairy worshipping > religion, it might be useful to provide some evidence to back your belief.
Sorry, you just scored against your own team. I was quoting a post with actual download numbers that actually demonstrate that the vast majority of users are on i386: see http://blog.bofh.it/id_66. For your convenience, I quote the numbers here again along with a quick percentage calculation: > md <- read.table("/tmp/md.txt", header=TRUE, row.names=1) > md <- cbind(md, percent=round(100*md[,1]/md["total",1], 4)) > md files.downloaded percent i386 1285422 70.5079 all 504789 27.6886 powerpc 17754 0.9738 ia64 10111 0.5546 sparc 3336 0.1830 arm 850 0.0466 alpha 507 0.0278 hppa 204 0.0112 mipsel 91 0.0050 m68k 15 0.0008 mips 7 0.0004 s390 4 0.0002 total 1823090 100.0000 > I believe we haven't seen any evidence that all our architectures has > delayed any release. DI was a potential sticking point, but it's already > sorted due to the hard work by the relevant porters while we're still > waiting for other technical issues to work themselves out. It delays our releases in the sense that it affects our resources: - available maintainer and developer time, - cpu cycles (witness Wouter's request to compile big packages rarely), - network bandwith (witness the discussion on mirror efficiency), - mirrror capacity (witness the sad state of amd64), - security response time (more builds to do) and that it - increases the load on infrastructure (t-p-u, security) - scarce resource such as release managers, ftp admins, ... if we have to look after arches that are *not really used*. As you say so cogently: "it might be useful to provide some evidence to back your belief". Consider the ball in your court, and please prove with tangible numbers how the approximate benefit from the minor arches is "roughly" equivalent to that of arches being used. Hand-waving ("find more bugs") won't do. Dirk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
