Hello, Ludovic Courtès <ludovic.cour...@inria.fr> writes:
> 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?) The elpa importer is accurate. Manual changes are often (I would say around 75%) required for the description field, tho. However, the generated source URI is not reliable (see bug #46849), which means the importer is not practical. Using it means the imported package will need to be updated quickly. > 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) Indeed. > gem (similar to PyPI) > npm (ditto) > > What about licensing info: which ones provide accurate licensing info? > My guess: > > gnu > pypi > cpan > cran > elpa Correct Regards, -- Nicolas Goaziou
