| 1 |
Hi, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
On 2020/05/08 08:17, Hans de Graaff wrote: |
| 4 |
> On Thu, 2020-05-07 at 09:29 +0200, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>> 1) list of selected packages (@world) |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> We would use this to determine the popularity of individual packages, |
| 9 |
>> plus by scanning their dependencies we would be able to make combined |
| 10 |
>> statistics for direct usage + dependencies of other selected |
| 11 |
>> packages. |
| 12 |
>> This would allow us to judge which packages need more of our |
| 13 |
>> attention. |
| 14 |
> At work we install a lot of dependencies through a few company-specific |
| 15 |
> virtual packages, e.g. company/developer for all stuff useful for our |
| 16 |
> developers. These packages would then be missed in the statistics. I'm |
| 17 |
> not sure how prevalent this is and to what extend it wills skew the |
| 18 |
> statistics. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
You raise a valid point. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
The company/developer package itself I don't think is relevant. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
The fact that some/package::gentoo is installed as a dependency of |
| 25 |
company/developer may carry some relevance. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
So we do need the full list of packages installed, filtered to ::gentoo, |
| 28 |
but there needs to be an indicated whether it's installed because it's |
| 29 |
in @world, as a dep of something in @world (which is possibly not in |
| 30 |
::gentoo), or is some form of no-longer needed dep. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Otherwise I agree with Michał on the four items to be taken. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
I do still think that the ability to define additional information sets |
| 35 |
would be useful for building more invasive functionality sets, not |
| 36 |
necessarily supported by Gentoo. For an organization if they can define |
| 37 |
a set that grabs a certain amount of hardware details for example that |
| 38 |
could help with inventory management. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
Kind Regards, |
| 41 |
Jaco |
Archives