Le 28 octobre 2021 03:02:27 GMT-04:00, "Ludovic Courtès" <ludovic.cour...@inria.fr> a écrit : >Hello Guix! > >As I’m preparing my PackagingCon talk and wondering how language package >managers could make our lives easier, I thought it’d be interesting to >know how well our importers are doing. > >My understanding is that most of them require manual intervention—i.e., >one has to tweak what ‘guix import’ produces, even if we ignore >synopsis/description/license, to set the right inputs, etc. If we were >to estimate the fraction of imported packages for which manual changes >are needed, what would it look like? > > importer fraction of imported packages needing changes > > gnu 90% (doesn’t know about dependencies) > pypi 50% (some miss source distro, “sdist”; some have > non-Python deps) > cpan ? > hackage ? > stackage (Lars?) > egg (Xinglu?) > elpa (Nicolas?) > gem ? > go (Sarah? Leo? Raghav?) > cran 5% (Ricardo? Simon? seems to almost always work?) > crate 10% (Efraim?) > texlive (Ricardo? Thiago? Marius?) > opam (Julien?)
I find it pretty good, when importing huge numbers of packages recently, I was able to build all of them without modification. However, lots rely on a github tarball, so I would change the source in these cases before sending them to guix. > minetest (Maxime? Vivien?) > julia (WIP) (Simon?) > npm (WIP) (Jelle? Timothy?) > >(Lower is better.) What would be your estimate? > >Among those, which importers provide source that differs from what you’d >get from upstream’s checkout or release tarballs? My guess: > > pypi (see LastPyMile paper) > elpa (gives hosted tarballs that can differ from upstream repo) > gem (similar to PyPI) > npm (ditto) > >What about licensing info: which ones provide accurate licensing info? >My guess: > > gnu > pypi > cpan > cran > elpa > go (?) > cran > crate (?) > texlive > opam (?) > minetest (?) > >TIA! :-) > >Ludo’. >