From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp12.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms5.migadu.com with LMTPS id oOMcLWZMe2NFEQAAbAwnHQ (envelope-from ) for ; Mon, 21 Nov 2022 11:01:10 +0100 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp12.migadu.com with LMTPS id uBsTLWZMe2MNUQEAauVa8A (envelope-from ) for ; Mon, 21 Nov 2022 11:01:10 +0100 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 774662F710 for ; Mon, 21 Nov 2022 11:01:10 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ox3bM-0001Lo-Hv; Mon, 21 Nov 2022 05:00:32 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ox3bK-0001LS-UT for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 21 Nov 2022 05:00:30 -0500 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ox3bJ-0007wq-Hv; Mon, 21 Nov 2022 05:00:29 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:Date:References:Subject:To: From; bh=998T0riwq6HC5pdjHIkWB8Y0A6xzJBdu2/fhEa6EUrA=; b=mGmqPSEx+KR4DiRWQwxr 15GuB410lme3vPCpiqY0Oi80Jz9z9/hTA/Eh9c6QPG6WcAGKPDMwgpMHI5Lf0dfN4HFWaLUn72GEf fMq2MHIzcyala7EEmD516gZALEKySkxizb1lO7776w/3QUzDi+hg6fjaXq6pSj7xcppkOXqyHYth8 FLyQw9MHfGKB4aAddj/3zET78aFHLpa3ViKdvW2TmVyw5Y/QtRPpj9mS8U0JCDIl9MgP5w9Jsvn+2 lyvKGOSKtTcnu6asEAEnnChG5jBhThtEZscqmwLK6El2myJ/k1MfYPexsaIw8r8E87K6Nn7kZj91s 1pUPC0wZ/n7VqA==; Received: from [193.50.110.147] (helo=ribbon) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ox3bJ-0003Sa-51; Mon, 21 Nov 2022 05:00:29 -0500 From: =?utf-8?Q?Ludovic_Court=C3=A8s?= To: zimoun Cc: jgart , Guix Devel Subject: (M)ELPA package metadata accuracy References: <20221116070959.GB4217@dismail.de> <87edu1ipem.fsf@gnu.org> <20221117190626.GB12202@dismail.de> <86cz9kk71y.fsf@gmail.com> X-URL: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ X-Revolutionary-Date: Primidi 1 Frimaire an 231 de la =?utf-8?Q?R=C3=A9vol?= =?utf-8?Q?ution=2C?= jour de la Raiponce X-PGP-Key-ID: 0x090B11993D9AEBB5 X-PGP-Key: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ludovic.asc X-PGP-Fingerprint: 3CE4 6455 8A84 FDC6 9DB4 0CFB 090B 1199 3D9A EBB5 X-OS: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2022 11:00:26 +0100 In-Reply-To: <86cz9kk71y.fsf@gmail.com> (zimoun's message of "Fri, 18 Nov 2022 09:20:25 +0100") Message-ID: <87mt8kmxtx.fsf_-_@gnu.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-BeenThere: guix-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_IN X-Migadu-Country: US ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yhetil.org; s=key1; t=1669024870; h=from:from:sender:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:list-id:list-help: list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-post:dkim-signature; bh=998T0riwq6HC5pdjHIkWB8Y0A6xzJBdu2/fhEa6EUrA=; b=E35z7T++rUE1IW8bDWGDti+wWT0Cx8fbHculbWPRS72Vl7wNB+dRqY8XayCdwDuidBGXur 3I4jTl/PH0jF+7p4lNDXzAIkN+RloF1C47t+yg+pfewgZ6wuW/fGZs5J8k8Wsnd9AQJmrB q3hpPOqwaYRkrKGZulCcsGaxV1PLF4tHLERCdTpN/irf4rRKsU09CZ66LbZV4UhiODlrM/ 1hIsXpwyoluvKkHSRaS7xsS+671GVoPDetmidc52vzWdwpbsqXDnO0lWMBaX/31Y3naCJ3 IKi1JU6oyDiAPY3inn3XUyBSfBcf0A+U3ynorBzPIwc2wVbWQ1d7GVvFhfg68g== ARC-Seal: i=1; s=key1; d=yhetil.org; t=1669024870; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=Faw74/ELgsMGAK33zvOgtcV1qG2l4mcN7SmdEf/ddf+8Ky878wrMO8ahk5rvjYeDJ2k8H6 V8h9h8uY58C/6fGqxI/7qKgnFRaWGPqbZMNJH6wlWe0DjRvHt3Ef7QUIy9CraRietpdW6x 0GFab0N7x+U7VbiyIMDn8l6/IqK/NvVU55mS8CBtULz6YupGhgWUtfCvN1re3OUTX+H6ti pVtqtEImx+/jxKRM07mr86YTVr6XmaOIaMe66pSREpmfobgrdWCpcxQMcILwl4beG60G/L okc3WRCCRBTsreHe5942d3057vjD4ITD77dutp8hTIuWiZGP+h7wCQjfWcvBwg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=pass header.d=gnu.org header.s=fencepost-gnu-org header.b=mGmqPSEx; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=gnu.org; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of "guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom="guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" X-Migadu-Spam-Score: -9.20 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=pass header.d=gnu.org header.s=fencepost-gnu-org header.b=mGmqPSEx; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=gnu.org; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of "guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom="guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" X-Migadu-Queue-Id: 774662F710 X-Spam-Score: -9.20 X-Migadu-Scanner: scn0.migadu.com X-TUID: RKifNy9s3iLf Hi! zimoun skribis: > For example, let count the number of packages that are tweaking their > =E2=80=99arguments=E2=80=99 fields (from =E2=80=99#:tests? #f=E2=80=99 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 =3D 2093 =3D 1991 + 102=20 > > which is good (only ~5% require =E2=80=99arguments=E2=80=99 tweaks), but > > python : 2630 =3D 2630 =3D 803 + 1827 > > is bad (only ~31% do not require an =E2=80=99arguments=E2=80=99 tweak). > > About Emacs, it reads, > > emacs : 1222 =3D 1222 =3D 874 + 348=20 So that=E2=80=99d 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/packag= ing-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=E2=80=99t be hard to get in touch so there=E2=80=99s a real oppo= rtunity here. Thanks, Ludo=E2=80=99.