[arch-general] [arch-dev-public] pkgstats: first results

[Allan McRae]

RedShift wrote:
> Pierre Schmitz wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I think you all are interested in the result of Allan's crazy idea to 
>> get some stats about package usage. I spent some/alot time this 
>> weekend to present you some stats.
>>
>> At first: I played a bit with gettext and some usefull pages are 
>> available in German and English (depends on your browser's config):
>>
>> * http://www.archlinux.de/?page=ArchitectureDifferences
>> * http://www.archlinux.de/?page=MirrorStatus
>> * http://www.archlinux.de/?page=PackageStatistics (That's the one; be 
>> warnded:
>>                                                    atm it loads > 2MB 
>> of pure
>>                                                    HTML!)
>>
>> For those who want to play with some sql queries, I have uploaded a 
>> (reduced) db-snapshot: 
>> http://users.archlinux.de/~pierre/tmp/pkgdb-stripped.sql.gz
>>
>> Before announcing this we should discuss the results and talk about 
>> what we learn about them.
>>
>> I'll make a start: (topdown)
>>
>> * extra and community have similar size
>> * more than 1200 submissions since friday. Thanks! :-)
>> * installation size varies from 126 to amazing 2800
>> * 1/4 use x86_64
>> * Nearly 70% of packages are from extra. Nice.
>> * Only 7% are installed from community and a similar amount   is in 
>> no official repo (Might be a sign that there is something wrong with
>>   priorities in [community])
>> * About 2% from extra and 3% from community aren't used by anybody!
>>   The unused kde-l10n pacakges are no problem; I create them 
>> automatically
>> * Nearly 20% of all users (that includes 3/4 i686) use lib32 
>> packages. * There are lots of rarly used packages in all repos
>> * kdemod-kdelibs is installed by 14,26 % while kdelibs fomr [extra] is
>>   installed by 34,05 %. Maybe splitting support in makepkg and 
>> devtools should
>>   get a higher priority
>> ...that should do it for a start.
>>
>
> Just a warning, generalizing based on these numbers (and on any 
> numbers in fact) is very dangerous.
>
> Glenn

Yes, but it better than making conclusions based on no numbers.

Allan