From: | Sebastian Pipping <webmaster@××××××××.org> | ||
---|---|---|---|
To: | gentoo-dev@l.g.o | ||
Subject: | Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Gentoo stats server/client @ 2009-08-22 | ||
Date: | Mon, 31 Oct 2011 03:59:34 | ||
Message-Id: | 4A948439.8020402@hartwork.org | ||
In Reply to: | [gentoo-dev] Re: Gentoo stats server/client @ 2009-08-22 by Christian Faulhammer |
1 | Christian Faulhammer wrote: |
2 | > That's a nice starting point to have a look if they aren't installed |
3 | > they are unpopular or because they fail to build (which makes them a |
4 | > candidate for removal). |
5 | |
6 | I'm not following - how would we find out about the reason a package is |
7 | never reported installed? |
8 | |
9 | |
10 | I've been working on the least-installed reporting stuff today. |
11 | For now I have split it in two halves: |
12 | |
13 | (1) a top N least-installed packages table |
14 | (only looking at packages with one install or more) |
15 | |
16 | (2) an plaintext file with a list of _all_ packages with zero |
17 | installations reported |
18 | |
19 | Latter is linked from the report's TOC on the main page, too. |
20 | Benefits I see with this approach include: |
21 | - Complete zero-installs data is presented, not excerpts |
22 | - Still, the report does not explode |
23 | - Suitable for further machine-processing |
24 | |
25 | Small adjustments to this behaviour should be no problem. |
26 | |
27 | |
28 | |
29 | Sebastian |
30 | |
31 | |
32 | (1) |
33 | http://smolt.hartwork.org:45678/static/stats/gentoo.html#installed_packages_least_installed_main_tree |
34 | (2) |
35 | http://smolt.hartwork.org:45678/static/stats/gentoo_zero_installs_packages.txt |