(M)ELPA package metadata accuracy

["Ludovic Courtès" <ludo@gnu.org>]

Hi!

zimoun <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> skribis:

> For example, let count the number of packages that are tweaking their
> ’arguments’ fields (from ’#:tests? #f’ to complex phases modifications).
> This is far from being a perfect metrics but it is a rough indication
> about upstream quality: if they provide clean package respecting their
> build system or if the package requires Guix adjustments.
>
> Well, I get:
>
>       r            : 2093 = 2093 = 1991 + 102 
>
> which is good (only ~5% require ’arguments’ tweaks), but
>
>       python       : 2630 = 2630 = 803  + 1827
>
> is bad (only ~31% do not require an ’arguments’ tweak).
>
> About Emacs, it reads,
>
>       emacs        : 1222 = 1222 = 874  + 348 


So that’d be 72% accurate package metadata for (M)ELPA, not too bad!

I tried to estimate repository package data accuracy for my PackagingCon
talk last year in a sophisticated way (perhaps too sophisticated):

  https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix/maintenance.git/plain/talks/packaging-con-2021/grail/talk.20211110.pdf
  (slide 53)

  https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2021-10/msg00297.html

I think we should identify common sources of inaccuracy in package
metadata and talk with repo maintainers to improve on that.  For MELPA,
it shouldn’t be hard to get in touch so there’s a real opportunity here.

Thanks,
Ludo’.