Re: bug#33844: Rename ghc-pandoc to pandoc

Re: bug#33844: Rename ghc-pandoc to pandoc

[Pierre Neidhardt]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 183 bytes --]

swedebugia@riseup.net writes:

> Reason: it is used standalone to convert between formats.

I agree.  What do other people think?

-- 
Pierre Neidhardt
https://ambrevar.xyz/

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 487 bytes --]

Re: bug#33844: Rename ghc-pandoc to pandoc

[Efraim Flashner]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 603 bytes --]

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 11:06:30AM +0100, Pierre Neidhardt wrote:
> swedebugia@riseup.net writes:
> 
> > Reason: it is used standalone to convert between formats.
> 
> I agree.  What do other people think?

This is language specific, but like other language-specific packages
this is a package people would specifically search for as 'pandoc' and I
agree, it should be renamed.


-- 
Efraim Flashner   <efraim@flashner.co.il>   אפרים פלשנר
GPG key = A28B F40C 3E55 1372 662D  14F7 41AA E7DC CA3D 8351
Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed on emails sent or received unencrypted

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: bug#33844: Rename ghc-pandoc to pandoc

[Ricardo Wurmus]

Pierre Neidhardt <mail@ambrevar.xyz> writes:

> swedebugia@riseup.net writes:
>
>> Reason: it is used standalone to convert between formats.
>
> I agree.  What do other people think?

I agree.

We should also rename all uses of ghc-pandoc in the same patch.

--
Ricardo

Re: bug#33844: Rename ghc-pandoc to pandoc

[Pierre Neidhardt]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 197 bytes --]

Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net> writes:

> We should also rename all uses of ghc-pandoc in the same patch.

Oops!  I'll resend patch 39798.

-- 
Pierre Neidhardt
https://ambrevar.xyz/

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 487 bytes --]

Re: bug#33844: Rename ghc-pandoc to pandoc

[Pierre Neidhardt]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 79 bytes --]

Done.
See patch patch 39798.

-- 
Pierre Neidhardt
https://ambrevar.xyz/

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 487 bytes --]

Re: bug#33844: Rename ghc-pandoc to pandoc

[Mike Gerwitz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 988 bytes --]

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 12:23:14 +0200, Efraim Flashner wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 11:06:30AM +0100, Pierre Neidhardt wrote:
>> swedebugia@riseup.net writes:
>> 
>> > Reason: it is used standalone to convert between formats.
>> 
>> I agree.  What do other people think?
>
> This is language specific, but like other language-specific packages
> this is a package people would specifically search for as 'pandoc' and I
> agree, it should be renamed.

Ah, for the record, I had searched for pandoc using `guix package -s
pandoc` in the past and didn't find what I was looking for, and so fell
back to a Debian system.  It turns out what I wanted was ghc-pandoc
after all.

But if I would have put a little bit more effort into looking, perhaps I
would have figured that out; I was in a hurry.

Thanks for making this change!

-- 
Mike Gerwitz
Free Software Hacker+Activist | GNU Maintainer & Volunteer
GPG: D6E9 B930 028A 6C38 F43B  2388 FEF6 3574 5E6F 6D05

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 818 bytes --]

Re: bug#33844: Rename ghc-pandoc to pandoc

[zimoun]

Hi Mike,

On Thu, 27 Feb 2020 at 02:23, Mike Gerwitz <mtg@gnu.org> wrote:

> Ah, for the record, I had searched for pandoc using `guix package -s
> pandoc` in the past and didn't find what I was looking for, and so fell
> back to a Debian system.  It turns out what I wanted was ghc-pandoc
> after all.

Thank you for pointing the issue.

My remark is *not* about the rename which seems fine. For the very
same reason than the "git-annex" software is named 'git-annex' and not
'ghc-git-annex'.


Well, your comment is pointing: a) that the description is badly
written and b) the 'relevance' score is too rough.

The command "guix search pandoc" returns as the highest ranked
package: ghc-pandoc-citeproc with the relevance score of 17. The
package of interest 'ghc-pandoc' appears at the 6th position with a
relevance score of 8. (And after emacs-pandoc-mode, ghc-pandoc-types,
emacs-ox-pandoc and python-pandocfilters; well less relevant packages,
IMO.)
Why? Because the number of occurrences of the term 'pandoc' in
synopsis+description+name.
ghc-pandoc-citeproc: 1+5+1
ghc-pandoc: 0+2+1

To be precise, the score uses weights and so it reads:

ghc-pandoc-citeproc: 3*1 + 2*5 + 4*1 = 17
ghc-pandoc: 3*0 + 2*2 + 4*1 = 8

And the rename bumps the score because there is an additional weight
(5) for exact match (which normally happens only for the 'name'
field).

ghc-pandoc-citeproc: 3*1 + 2*5 + 4*1 = 17
pandoc: 3*0 + 2*2 + 4*1*5 = 24

It apparently fixes the issue and now the package named 'pandoc' will
show up first. But it is an artefact because it is easy* to find other
weights that invalidate this expected ranking; and the current weights
are a working rule of thumbs but not deeply thought, AFAIK.


*For example instead of 5, let choose 2, then the score becomes:
3*0+2*2+4*1*2=12 which is less than 17. Well, not so easy because 2 is
the same as 'description' and it seems less natural; i.e., it appears
more natural to have a high weight for an exact match. But the point
is: it is possible to find another working rule of thumb which will
not return the expected result for all the packages.


The real problem is not the non-obvious name (ghc-pandoc instead of
simply pandoc) but it is: a) some descriptions are badly written and
b) the 'relevance' scoring function is not enough "smart" to detect
them.



All the best,
simon

Re: bug#33844: Rename ghc-pandoc to pandoc

[Mike Gerwitz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 482 bytes --]

On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 14:10:15 +0100, zimoun wrote:
> Well, your comment is pointing: a) that the description is badly
> written and b) the 'relevance' score is too rough.

[...]

> The real problem is not the non-obvious name (ghc-pandoc instead of
> simply pandoc) but it is: a) some descriptions are badly written and
> b) the 'relevance' scoring function is not enough "smart" to detect
> them.

Thank you for taking the time to explain this.

-- 
Mike Gerwitz

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 818 bytes --]