Re: pkgsrc-current-destdir Linux 2.6.24-1-686-bigmem/i686 bulk build results 20080716.1221

[Aleksey Cheusov <cheusov%tut.by@localhost>]

> On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 11:29:14PM +0300, Aleksey Cheusov wrote:
 >> > Could you, please, stop generating this useless blame-list and
 >> > rather include the more helpful list of top 10 broken packages with
 >> > the highest number of dependencies?
 >> 
 >> All packages are already sorted according to a number of dependancies.

> Then just remove the section, please.  Thanks.

I don't see any reason for this, sorry.  This section shows how many
packages including dependancies are broken per package maintainer.
And this information is very useful.
A special interest is pkgsrc-users@ "maintainer". A number of packages
broken by pkgsrc-users@ shows how good are packages
that have no individual maintainer.

These particular numbers 

  Top offenders

     Maintainer                 Breaks

     pkgsrc-users%NetBSD.org@localhost  1843
     joerg%NetBSD.org@localhost                 171
     tron%NetBSD.org@localhost          140
     adam%NetBSD.org@localhost          125

IMHO shows that pkgsrc needs more package maintainers to make DESTDIR
support better or the existing package maintainers should support better
the packages "maintained" by pkgsrc-users@.

These numbers from my another bulk build running under Linux in turn 

  Top offenders

    Maintainer                  Breaks

    pkgsrc-users%NetBSD.org@localhost     618
    rh%NetBSD.org@localhost               42
    adam%NetBSD.org@localhost             36
    tonio%NetBSD.org@localhost            34

say that in order to improve Linux support pkgsrc needs more packagers
(package maintainers) running Linux.

Thus, this information is helpful and is very interesting and I will
not remove this section.  If you personally don't like it, ignore it.

If you want to run distbb bulk builds yourself, I can make this
section optional in distbb.

Anyway DESTDIR support (the goal of pkgsrc-current-destdir bulk build
is to see a progress) becomes better every bulk build.

P.S.
I personally don't like pbulk's "indirectly failed, prefailed,
indirect prefailed" etc. I also don't like an information about last
touched file (it is useless) generated by original bulk build
framework. So, what? Both this programs generate bulk build logs that are
_partially_ useful for me.

-- 
Best regards, Aleksey Cheusov.