Le 13 févr. 09 à 03:01, jida...@jidanni.org a écrit :
OK, instead of a Date: field in Packages, I can get a better idea of
how
well maintained a package is with an "updates vs. bugs" perspective,
e.g.,
I would also have a look at the package's popularity. An old, barely
used, broken pack
Hi!
On Thu, 2009-02-12 at 13:27:14 +0900, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 12:40 PM, wrote:
> > PW> Which date would it contain?
> >
> > The date the maintainer made the polishing touches on the .deb.
>
> We don't have that date. We do have:
> [...]
And the date the .deb was built:
OK, instead of a Date: field in Packages, I can get a better idea of how
well maintained a package is with an "updates vs. bugs" perspective, e.g.,
for package
do for u in http://packages.qa.debian.org/common/index.html?src=$package \
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?pkg=$package
* Enrico Zini [Thu, 12 Feb 2009 22:50:41 +]:
> On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 08:44:16PM +0100, Leo costela Antunes wrote:
> > I would propose something like freshness of bugs vs. freshness of last
> > non-binary upload, possibly weighted. This would let old but
> > non-problematic packages off the
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 08:44:16PM +0100, Leo costela Antunes wrote:
> I would propose something like freshness of bugs vs. freshness of last
> non-binary upload, possibly weighted. This would let old but
> non-problematic packages off the radar.
I don't have the time to design and test such an a
Enrico Zini wrote:
> If anyone can suggest me a decent heuristics to spot a 'rotting' package
> (like, for example standards-version older than X, but you need to tell
> me what X), I can automatically mine it and turn it into a debtags tag.
I would propose something like freshness of bugs vs. fre
>> > That way one could tell, even when offline, if a package hasn't been
>> > updated in ten years.
>> I hope we don't have any of those.
> And those that we have, we can also spot them by old Standards-Version
> in lintian warnings.
> If anyone can suggest me a decent heuristics to spot a 'rott
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 11:40:32 +0800, jida...@jidanni.org wrote:
> Well OK, assuming network connections, one can always just do e.g.,
Or `who-uploads --date $package'.
Cheers,
gregor
--
.''`. Home: http://info.comodo.priv.at/{,blog/} / GPG Key ID: 0x00F3CFE4
: :' : Debian GNU/Linux user, a
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 01:27:14PM +0900, Paul Wise wrote:
> > That way one could tell, even when offline, if a package hasn't been
> > updated in ten years.
> I hope we don't have any of those.
And those that we have, we can also spot them by old Standards-Version
in lintian warnings.
If anyone
On Thu, 2009-02-12 at 11:40 +0800, jida...@jidanni.org wrote:
> >> Imagine, "freshness dating available right there on the grocer's
> >> shelf, in Packages.gz. No need for the consumer to jump through
> >> additional hoops to find out."
>
> PW> Which date would it contain?
>
> The date the mainta
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 12:40 PM, wrote:
> PW> Which date would it contain?
>
> The date the maintainer made the polishing touches on the .deb.
We don't have that date. We do have:
The date from the changelog/changes file. Depending on the workflow
the maintainer uses, this could be when they
>> Imagine, "freshness dating available right there on the grocer's
>> shelf, in Packages.gz. No need for the consumer to jump through
>> additional hoops to find out."
PW> Which date would it contain?
The date the maintainer made the polishing touches on the .deb.
That way one could tell, even w
Paul Wise writes:
> On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 9:11 AM, wrote:
>> Speaking about new control fields, how about "Date:"?
>> Imagine, "freshness dating available right there on the grocer's shelf,
>> in Packages.gz. No need for the consumer to jump through additional
>> hoops to find out."
> Which
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 9:11 AM, wrote:
> Speaking about new control fields, how about "Date:"?
>
> Imagine, "freshness dating available right there on the grocer's
> shelf, in Packages.gz. No need for the consumer to jump through
> additional hoops to find out."
Which date would it contain?
>
Speaking about new control fields, how about "Date:"?
Imagine, "freshness dating available right there on the grocer's
shelf, in Packages.gz. No need for the consumer to jump through
additional hoops to find out."
OK, never mind.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.or
15 matches
Mail list logo
