Kristoffer Fossgård wrote:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 5:52 AM, bardo <ilbardo@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 9:54 AM, Kristoffer Fossgård <kfs1@online.no> wrote:
Your all missing my point. I never said counting packages by downloadrate is a perfect solution but that IT IS GOOD ENOUGH _and_ BETTER THAN THE VOTE SYSTEM.
That's what I thought. Even monitoring a single download mirror could be enough, if it's not an obscure and unpopular one. At least gathered data would be statistically *relevant*, even though not accurate. We can think of a single mirror as a good approximation of the whole community, excluding i18n/l10n packages, which are highly dependendt on the physical location of the mirror itself.
Guys. I have to point out a flaw in this reasoning. We are talking about packages _entering_ community. Not remaining there. For packages not in community, there is no download except from the AUR website. We *could* in theory, track this, but there's 3 or 4 different ways one can download things from the AUR
There's one way technically. You download the tarball. Where are all the other ways? Even if there are why is this even relevant? It's not like a reasonably good-enough download counter is hard technically to accomplish(feel free to scold me if you think it is).
Again, just downloading a package does not mean I like it or use it. As someone previously stated: if you tell me you've never installed a packaged, tried it, and removed it because you didn't like it, you're probably lying.
Your still not getting it. The system doesn't have to be 100% perfect, it only has to offer a representation of which packages are "popular". that's it. we don't need to know how many "downloads" are really "conscientious" because the large majority of them will be.
The two systems we already have "offer a representation of which packages are popular" but there is much debate about how good that representation is. A third is really not going to help.... Allan