bug#33844: Rename ghc-pandoc to pandoc

bug#33844: Rename ghc-pandoc to pandoc

[swedebugia]

Reason: it is used standalone to convert between formats.

-- 
Cheers 
Swedebugia

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

[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 --]

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

[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 --]

bug#33844: Rename ghc-pandoc to pandoc

[Tobias Geerinckx-Rice via Bug reports for GNU Guix]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 181 bytes --]

Pierre Neidhardt 写道：
>> Reason: it is used standalone to convert between formats.
>
> I agree.  What do other people think?

[Thumbs-up emoji]

Kind regards,

T G-R

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 832 bytes --]

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

[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

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: 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 --]

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

[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 --]

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

[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 --]

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

[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

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 --]

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 --]

bug#33844: Rename ghc-pandoc to pandoc

[zimoun]

Hi,

On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 12:57, Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net> wrote:

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

Commit d4e4a3824d380e576b56a74aa714db205fcc59a4 adds pandoc.

The packages:

 - ruby-pandoc-ruby
 - rapicorn
 - ganeti
 - manuskript
 - emacs-org-web-tools
 - emacs-ox-pandoc

do not use pandoc instead of ghc-pandoc; I do not know if it matters or
if they need to also switch.  More all Haskell packages in
haskell-xyz.scm.


Since ghc-pandoc is still here and even pandoc inherits from it, I
propose to close.

All the best,
simon

bug#33844: Rename ghc-pandoc to pandoc

[Ricardo Wurmus]

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

> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 12:57, Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net> wrote:
>
>> We should also rename all uses of ghc-pandoc in the same patch.
>
> Commit d4e4a3824d380e576b56a74aa714db205fcc59a4 adds pandoc.
>
> The packages:
>
>  - ruby-pandoc-ruby
>  - rapicorn
>  - ganeti
>  - manuskript
>  - emacs-org-web-tools
>  - emacs-ox-pandoc
>
> do not use pandoc instead of ghc-pandoc; I do not know if it matters or
> if they need to also switch.  More all Haskell packages in
> haskell-xyz.scm.

If these packages only use the “pandoc” executable they should use the
“pandoc” package instead of “ghc-pandoc”.  “ghc-pandoc” is only meant
for Haskell packages that use Pandoc as a library.  This is a much rarer
case, so we can assume that most packages should use “pandoc” instead of
“ghc-pandoc”.

-- 
Ricardo

bug#33844: Rename ghc-pandoc to pandoc

[zimoun]

Dear,

On Wed, 09 Sep 2020 at 18:11, Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net> wrote:
> zimoun <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> writes:

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

The packages: …

>>  - rapicorn
>>  - ganeti
>>  - manuskript
>>  - emacs-org-web-tools
>>  - emacs-ox-pandoc
>>  - ruby-pandoc-ruby

… now uses ’pandoc’ instead of ’ghc-pandoc’, see:

c22c6de453 gnu: rapicorn: Use pandoc instead of ghc-pandoc.
885332832c gnu: ganeti: Use pandoc instead of ghc-pandoc.
5dc5a3116b gnu: manuskript: Use pandoc instead of ghc-pandoc.
991c61678b gnu: emacs-org-web-tools: Use pandoc instead of ghc-pandoc.
d37279ee1e gnu: emacs-ox-pandoc: Use pandoc instead of ghc-pandoc.
8cc8e584ab gnu: ruby-pandoc-ruby: Use pandoc instead of ghc-pandoc.


> If these packages only use the “pandoc” executable they should use the
> “pandoc” package instead of “ghc-pandoc”.  “ghc-pandoc” is only meant
> for Haskell packages that use Pandoc as a library.  This is a much rarer
> case, so we can assume that most packages should use “pandoc” instead of
> “ghc-pandoc”.

The only non-Haskell package remaining is ’gnu/packages/mail.scm
(muchsync)’.  Once this package is done (see #43848 [1]), we should be
able to close this bug, I guess.


[1] <http://issues.guix.gnu.org/issue/43848>

All the best,
simon

bug#33844: Rename ghc-pandoc to pandoc

[zimoun]

On Wed, 07 Oct 2020 at 17:27, zimoun <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear,
>
> On Wed, 09 Sep 2020 at 18:11, Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net> wrote:
>> zimoun <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>>> We should also rename all uses of ghc-pandoc in the same patch.
>
> The packages: …
>
>>>  - rapicorn
>>>  - ganeti
>>>  - manuskript
>>>  - emacs-org-web-tools
>>>  - emacs-ox-pandoc
>>>  - ruby-pandoc-ruby
>
> … now uses ’pandoc’ instead of ’ghc-pandoc’, see:
>
> c22c6de453 gnu: rapicorn: Use pandoc instead of ghc-pandoc.
> 885332832c gnu: ganeti: Use pandoc instead of ghc-pandoc.
> 5dc5a3116b gnu: manuskript: Use pandoc instead of ghc-pandoc.
> 991c61678b gnu: emacs-org-web-tools: Use pandoc instead of ghc-pandoc.
> d37279ee1e gnu: emacs-ox-pandoc: Use pandoc instead of ghc-pandoc.
> 8cc8e584ab gnu: ruby-pandoc-ruby: Use pandoc instead of ghc-pandoc.
>
>
>> If these packages only use the “pandoc” executable they should use the
>> “pandoc” package instead of “ghc-pandoc”.  “ghc-pandoc” is only meant
>> for Haskell packages that use Pandoc as a library.  This is a much rarer
>> case, so we can assume that most packages should use “pandoc” instead of
>> “ghc-pandoc”.
>
> The only non-Haskell package remaining is ’gnu/packages/mail.scm
> (muchsync)’.  Once this package is done (see #43848 [1]), we should be
> able to close this bug, I guess.

Done by <http://issues.guix.gnu.org/issue/43848#1>, see 8514dfdee6.

Closing.

Thanks,
simon