unofficial mirror of guix-devel@gnu.org 
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
From: zimoun <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com>
To: "Ludovic Courtès" <ludo@gnu.org>
Cc: Guix Devel <guix-devel@gnu.org>
Subject: Re: Accuracy of importers?
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2021 19:36:02 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <86ee7pnpm5.fsf@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87o86tjmvh.fsf@gnu.org>

Hi,

On Tue, 09 Nov 2021 at 17:48, Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> wrote:

> What I think those figures show is the amount of manual tweaks necessary
> to get a proper package “à la Guix”, with tests running etc.  For PyPI
> we often need to add things under ‘native-inputs’, hence the 71%
> “different inputs” line.  For CRAN that’s sometimes necessary, but much
> less frequently.  There are also cases with non-R/non-Python
> dependencies.

The numbers are based on “dependencies“ mismatch.  But this mismatch is
sometimes artificial.  For instance, I am not convinced that upstream
distinguish between build-time (or test-time) dependency and run-time
dependency.  I mean many packages would work with all dependencies
directly inside ’propagated-inputs’ or ’inputs’ (probably what importers
return), when “à la Guix” move some to ’native-inputs’.  Well, I do not
know what we can conclude at the end.

For instance, the numbers are:

  Accuracy for 'pypi' (200 packages):
    accurate: 58 (29%)
    different inputs: 142 (71%)
    different source: 0 (0%)
    inconclusive: 0 (0%)
  Accuracy for 'cran' (200 packages):
    accurate: 176 (88%)
    different inputs: 23 (12%)
    different source: 1 (0%)
    inconclusive: 0 (0%)

but on these numbers, how many CRAN packages have other dependencies
than the ones listed ’propagated-inputs’?  I guess 24.

My point is that there is a strong bias about the “complexity“ of
packages.  If CRAN packages are “simpler”, then indeed they are more
accurate.

Other said, when picking 200 samples for each importer, each of these
200 batch should have the same distribution about inputs:

 - X ’propagated-inputs’ only
 - Y ’propagated-inputs’ and ’inputs’
 - Z ’propagated-inputs’ and ’inputs’ and ’native-inputs’

where X+Y+Z=100%.  Then, the number of the two importers become
“comparable”.
 

>> My understanding of this experiment is about upstream “quality”, not
>> about importer “accuracy”.  Do I incorrectly understand?
>
> Yes, in a way, assuming our importers are not lossy, this tells us
> whether the upstream repo contains enough information and/or whether
> that information is accurate.

Thanks for explaining.


Cheers,
simon


  reply	other threads:[~2021-11-09 18:43 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-10-28  7:02 Accuracy of importers? Ludovic Courtès
2021-10-28  8:17 ` Lars-Dominik Braun
2021-10-28  8:54   ` Ludovic Courtès
2021-10-28 10:06     ` Lars-Dominik Braun
2021-10-29 21:57   ` Ludovic Courtès
2021-10-30 15:49     ` zimoun
2021-11-09 16:48       ` Ludovic Courtès
2021-11-09 18:36         ` zimoun [this message]
2021-10-28  9:06 ` zimoun
2021-10-28  9:30   ` zimoun
2021-10-28 11:38 ` Julien Lepiller
2021-10-28 12:25 ` Ricardo Wurmus
2021-10-28 14:47 ` Katherine Cox-Buday
2021-10-29 19:29 ` Nicolas Goaziou
2021-10-29 23:08   ` Carlo Zancanaro
2021-10-30 10:55 ` Xinglu Chen

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

  List information: https://guix.gnu.org/

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=86ee7pnpm5.fsf@gmail.com \
    --to=zimon.toutoune@gmail.com \
    --cc=guix-devel@gnu.org \
    --cc=ludo@gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox

	https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).