[aur-general] pkgstats and unused [community] packages

Aaron Bull Schaefer aaron at elasticdog.com
Tue Oct 26 11:29:38 EDT 2010

On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 7:36 AM, Xyne <xyne at archlinux.ca> wrote:
> I can see the point of removing orphans but I still think that using pkgstats
> as a metric is a bad idea for everything else. Casual users, i.e. those who are
> not actively involved on the forum or IRC won't even be aware of pkgstats.
> Really, who installs a distro and actively looks for a way to submit user data?
> And please don't try to tell me that the only users who matter are the ones who
> form the core community.
> Then you have the paranoid who won't submit anything, even if they're a small
> group. Ultimately pkgstats only reflect the usage of a small group of people
> with possibly skewed interests. (There should be a few statisticians around so
> it would be interesting to hear their analysis of this... let's face it, most
> people fail at interpret ting statistical data and ultimately do so with a
> bias that supports their own agenda... *cough*politicians*cough*.)*

+57, these are all topics that were brought up during the original
discussion of using pkgstats as a means to promote packages from
unsupported to community, and they were never really addressed. Our
system of 10 votes or 1% usage in pkgstats is completely arbitrary. We
don't have any statistical means of backing up what those numbers
actually mean; they were picked pretty much just because they sounded
good. There was even a long-time Trusted User who resigned due to the
frustration of arguing over these issues.

Anyway, my take on it is that as long as the packages aren't orphans
that have been out of date for a *long* time, then what's the harm in
keeping them in the repo? If the packages are being maintained anyway,
it benefits everyone by having them in there, and unless we're running
dangerously low on resources, the cleanup process isn't that
necessary. If we _are_ running dangerously low on resources, is it
better to drop software that may be used by a lot of people, or would
it be better to campaign to raise some money for additional resources?
I'm not saying that we never need to prune things up, but at this
point in time, we don't have any good means of determining what needs
to go aside from the personal judgement of our TUs, which luckily, is
pretty reliable.

Aaron "ElasticDog" Schaefer

More information about the aur-general mailing list