> > I know, I was looking for some "raw" data, like source packages to try > > to extrapolate more accurate data. > > but a gap of more than 10k binary packages gives the idea. > In my personal experience it is somewhat less grandoise. IIRC, majority of the packages is simply snapshotted from Debian Sid and only a fraction of packages is maintained and supported by Canonical (the "main" repo). The rest (the "universe") often has little to no QA nor bugfix and security updates. Many of the obscure apps won't even start. On top of this, Debian and Ubuntu have loads of metapackages (empty packages that depend on sth else) and packages with third-party manuals, howtos and e-books that are not software. And then there are packages with proprietary and patented software, which Fedora proper won't ship. And if one wants the latest upstream-stable versions, then one goes hunting for .debs on third-party repos, Launchpad PPAs, GetDeb, etc. This is not to disparage the great work Canonical and Debian people are doing. It's just that those numbers need to be put into proper perspective.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: To jest =?UTF-8?Q?cz=C4=99=C5=9B=C4=87?= =?UTF-8?Q?_wiadomo=C5=9Bci?= podpisana cyfrowo
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
