Hi,
On Tue, 09 Nov 2021 at 17:48, Ludovic Courtès <l...@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
