On Thu, 2016-09-08 at 10:15 +0200, Jelle van der Waa wrote: > > > Not sure what you are trying to achieve with this email, but it's My point was just that by focussing on the more important packages, it seems to me Arch is doing pretty well in my view - the glass is half full so to speak. > actually a bit worse. We have 189 (i686/x86_64 included) packages which Yep indeed - I did the count approach as well at first - but I found it more helpful to poke around a little more and try to take into consideration importance, don't double count different arch's, dont double count related packages (e.g. gambas*, util-linux and libutil- linux etc). My goal was to tease apart the raw counts into something I found more meaningful. It is certainly true that different folks will lkely view importance differently or have different perspectives to my own. I'm only speaking for myself here. As an aside - both the 4.7.3 kernel and util-linux are already up to date :-) gene > -- Gene lists@xxxxxxxxxxxx
