On Fri, 2022-02-11 at 20:01 +0100, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > Hi! > > I did some quick'n'dirty statistics of how many ELF files successfully gained > a .package.note section. > > packages: 28742, see [1] for the list (*) > ELF files: 72464, see [2] > ELF files with .package.note: 47939, see [3] > ELF files without: 24525, see [4] > > It turns out that many of those are special files. I filtered > out '\.(mod|o|h|cmxs|go|syso|c32|fas|wcx|wdx|dsx|wlx|wfx|out|dyn.*none)$' (**). > Most of those seem irrelevant, in particular .o hasn't been linked, > so it can't have the notes section… > > ELF files after filtering: 15723, see [5] > packages for those filtered files: 4659, see [6] > > I did some quick analysis, and the reasons why the notes section is > missing differ: > - 460 packages don't have the .fc36 tag, so they weren't rebuilt > - some packages I checked were built before the mass rebuild and > got the .fc36 disttag, but failed in the subsequent mass rebuild > - opt-outs: > 895 ghc packages > 210+ ocaml packages > 197 R packages > 30 ruby packages > 61 python packages > > That still leaves quite a lot of packages without the notes, but I think > more manual analysis would be necessary to figure out the reasons. > > Coverage: > packages: 1 - 4659/28742: 84% (***) > ELF files, excl. irrelevant: 47939 / (47939 + 15723): 75% > ELF files under /usr/lib64/: 1-8114/(8114+30320): 79% > ELF files under /usr/bin/ and /usr/sbin/: 1-5769/(5769+16321): 74% > > I think this gives pretty good coverage, esp. for libraries, but > more remains. > > [1] https://in.waw.pl/~zbyszek/fedora/f36-package-grep-4.txt > [2] https://in.waw.pl/~zbyszek/fedora/f36-elf.txt > [3] https://in.waw.pl/~zbyszek/fedora/f36-elf-noted.txt > [4] https://in.waw.pl/~zbyszek/fedora/f36-elf-unnoted.txt > [5] https://in.waw.pl/~zbyszek/fedora/f36-elf-unnoted-filtered.txt > [6] https://in.waw.pl/~zbyszek/fedora/f36-elf-unnoted-rpms.txt > > (*) Some -data and -langpack- files were excluded to avoid unnecessary downloads. > > (**) .h is because I did some earlier grep wrong, so some ELFheader.h > was included in the list :( > > (***) an applies-to-orangies comparison, because there are many noarch > packages in the total number. > > Zbyszek Fantastic work and very interesting summary, thank you! -- Kind regards, Luca Boccassi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
