| 1 |
Sebastian Pipping wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hello! |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> Arrivals |
| 6 |
> ======== |
| 7 |
> The third peport table on installed packages "most-unmasked" has just |
| 8 |
> arrived: |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> http://smolt.hartwork.org:45678/static/stats/gentoo.html#installed_packages_most_unmasked |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Questions |
| 14 |
> ========= |
| 15 |
> Before adding the forth "least-installed" table, I'd like to take the |
| 16 |
> chance to ask for input from the treecleaner team, as it may be of most |
| 17 |
> interest to you in the future. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
No need to add treecleaner to CC. I think we are all on this list anyway. ;) |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> - Do you need anything that a dumb linear-with-counter approach |
| 23 |
> cannot offer? |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Right now, I can't think of anything else actually. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> - Would zero-install packages be more interesting than |
| 29 |
> almost-zero ones or the other way around? |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
I don't really understand this question. Does "zero-install" mean that |
| 32 |
they are not installed at all? This isn't really useful, because the |
| 33 |
ommition of a package from the page can mean that no one has it |
| 34 |
installed. ;) |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
> What's next |
| 39 |
> =========== |
| 40 |
> Besides before-mentioned table the task |
| 41 |
> |
| 42 |
> Collect FEATURES variables in three sets (conf, defaults, globals), |
| 43 |
> not merged |
| 44 |
> http://soc.gentooexperimental.org/issues/show/58 |
| 45 |
> |
| 46 |
> is next on my list. |
| 47 |
> |
| 48 |
> |
| 49 |
> |
| 50 |
> Sebastian |
| 51 |
> |
Archives