Proposed discussion point (Re: Plan for tomorrows (20081008) FESCO meeting)

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

On 07.10.2008 22:45, Christian Iseli wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 20:07:56 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> (²)  According to
>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/PackageStatus/CompsF10Missing
>> "We have 2866 packages in comps-f10 file."
>> "We have 1711 packages missing"
>>
>> I'm not sure those stats are correct, as we afaik have way more
>> source and binary packages:
>>
>> $ repoquery --repoid=rawhide -a | wc -l ; repoquery \
>>          --repoid=rawhide-source --arch=src -a | wc -l
>> 14139
>> 6300
> 
> The discrepancy can be (at least partly) explained by the fact that the
> script producing the missing stats has some heuristics about packages
> to ignore.  Package names matching these regexps are not flagged as
> missing:
>     next if $k =~ /plugin/i;
>     next if $k =~ /^(lib|compat-|xfce4-|gtk-|kmod-|fonts?-)/i;
>     next if $k =~ /(-devel|lib[s0-9]*|-python|-perl|-servers?|-clients?|-tools?)$/i;
>     next if $k =~ /(-contribs?|-docs?|-x?emacs|-utils?|-fonts?)$/i;
> Package having a summary containing this regexp:
>       next if $BZOWN->{$k}->{'summary'} =~ /(binding|library|module|utilit)/i;
> And there is a short blacklist:
>   "autodownloader" => 1,
>   "theora-exp" => 1,
>   "freetype1" => 1,
>   "paragui" => 1
> 
> HTH...

Yes, it does, as this seems to be quite relevant for the "Which packages 
should be in comps.xml and which not?" question.

CU
knurd