[arch-dev-public] Developer reports
There is a new section on the dev dashboard entitled "Developer Reports"- it contains fun things like Old Packages (http://www.archlinux.org/devel/reports/old/). If you have feedback or thoughts on other reports that might make your packaging duties easier, let me know. -Dan
On Friday 29 April 2011 10:18:53 Dan McGee wrote:
There is a new section on the dev dashboard entitled "Developer Reports"- it contains fun things like Old Packages (http://www.archlinux.org/devel/reports/old/). If you have feedback or thoughts on other reports that might make your packaging duties easier, let me know. Nice. Maybe a list of packages orphans and needed by none would be usefull for us to clean [extra] and for the TUs which could adopt the packages in [community].
-- Andrea
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 5:40 PM, Andrea Scarpino <andrea@archlinux.org> wrote:
On Friday 29 April 2011 10:18:53 Dan McGee wrote:
There is a new section on the dev dashboard entitled "Developer Reports"- it contains fun things like Old Packages (http://www.archlinux.org/devel/reports/old/). If you have feedback or thoughts on other reports that might make your packaging duties easier, let me know. Nice. Maybe a list of packages orphans and needed by none would be usefull for us to clean [extra] and for the TUs which could adopt the packages in [community].
I think I got the idea right, will show up next time I update: http://projects.archlinux.org/archweb.git/commit/?id=5379348c9337a4abe27e807...
On Friday 29 April 2011 18:22:40 Dan McGee wrote:
I think I got the idea right, will show up next time I update: http://projects.archlinux.org/archweb.git/commit/?id=5379348c9337a4abe27e807 fef7956e11eebed30 Does it includes checks for make/optional dependencies too?
-- Andrea
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 6:24 PM, Andrea Scarpino <andrea@archlinux.org> wrote:
On Friday 29 April 2011 18:22:40 Dan McGee wrote:
I think I got the idea right, will show up next time I update: http://projects.archlinux.org/archweb.git/commit/?id=5379348c9337a4abe27e807 fef7956e11eebed30 Does it includes checks for make/optional dependencies too? It includes optdepends because those are in repository DBs. Makedepends are not, so it doesn't include those.
This isn't a "delete every package on this list, clearly unnecessary" report. Some judgment will be necessary. :) -Dan
On Friday 29 April 2011 18:27:45 Dan McGee wrote:
It includes optdepends because those are in repository DBs. Makedepends are not, so it doesn't include those.
This isn't a "delete every package on this list, clearly unnecessary" report. Some judgment will be necessary. :) Ok no problem :) BTW, Thanks!
-- Andrea
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 11:18 AM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:
There is a new section on the dev dashboard entitled "Developer Reports"- it contains fun things like Old Packages (http://www.archlinux.org/devel/reports/old/). If you have feedback or thoughts on other reports that might make your packaging duties easier, let me know.
-Dan
Couple of comments: 1- It would be nice to have a column with the maintainer's name so we can quickly see which one of these packages we are maintaining. If space is an issue, we could remove the column for "flag date" as it doens't seem to be much useful for these reports. 2- The report for large packages should list the sizes in MB instead of bytes. Eric
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 11:18 AM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:
There is a new section on the dev dashboard entitled "Developer Reports"- it contains fun things like Old Packages (http://www.archlinux.org/devel/reports/old/). If you have feedback or thoughts on other reports that might make your packaging duties easier, let me know.
-Dan
Couple of comments:
1- It would be nice to have a column with the maintainer's name so we can quickly see which one of these packages we are maintaining. If space is an issue, we could remove the column for "flag date" as it doens't seem to be much useful for these reports. You're oversimplifying- remember that packages don't have "a
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 7:23 PM, Eric Bélanger <snowmaniscool@gmail.com> wrote: maintainer", they have multiple maintainers. I can add this, but it will make these pages a heck of a lot slower to load, which is the biggest issue. One thing that comes to mind that would be an overall report, and a "mine" report for each one...
2- The report for large packages should list the sizes in MB instead of bytes. That would make the generic nature of these reports a lot harder, and/or involve me sinking quite a bit of time into making something generic that formats sizes. Deal with it for now. :)
-Dan
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 9:26 PM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 11:18 AM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:
There is a new section on the dev dashboard entitled "Developer Reports"- it contains fun things like Old Packages (http://www.archlinux.org/devel/reports/old/). If you have feedback or thoughts on other reports that might make your packaging duties easier, let me know.
-Dan
Couple of comments:
1- It would be nice to have a column with the maintainer's name so we can quickly see which one of these packages we are maintaining. If space is an issue, we could remove the column for "flag date" as it doens't seem to be much useful for these reports. You're oversimplifying- remember that packages don't have "a
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 7:23 PM, Eric Bélanger <snowmaniscool@gmail.com> wrote: maintainer", they have multiple maintainers. I can add this, but it will make these pages a heck of a lot slower to load, which is the biggest issue. One thing that comes to mind that would be an overall report, and a "mine" report for each one...
2- The report for large packages should list the sizes in MB instead of bytes. That would make the generic nature of these reports a lot harder, and/or involve me sinking quite a bit of time into making something generic that formats sizes. Deal with it for now. :)
-Dan
If doing these changes would require increasing the load time or complexity, you can ignore them. I suggested them because I thought they were trivial, then again I don't know how the website is designed.
participants (3)
-
Andrea Scarpino
-
Dan McGee
-
Eric Bélanger