[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Introducing codesearch.debian.net, a regexp code search engine



On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 19:05:43 +0100
Michael Stapelberg <stapelberg@debian.org> wrote:

> Debian Code Search is a search engine for program source code within
> Debian.
> 
> It allows you to search all ≈ 17000 source packages,
> containing 130 GiB of FLOSS source code (including Debian
> packaging) with regular expressions.

It's pleasingly quick, which is always good. Might need to be able to
exclude the debian/ directory from searches.
 
> You can use the search engine at http://codesearch.debian.net/
> Here are a few sample queries:
> • http://codesearch.debian.net/search?q=workaround+package%3Alinux
> • http://codesearch.debian.net/search?q=XCreateWindow
> • http://codesearch.debian.net/search?q=AnyEvent%3A%3AI3+filetype%3Aperl
> 
> The corresponding thesis (and source code, of course) will be released
> soon (2013-01-15 being the deadline, but I hope I can do it
> earlier).
> 
> I hope you find it useful and would love to hear your feedback.

First thing which occurs to me is that I'd prefer a summary page as the
entry point for the search results - listing package, version and
possibly a link to the PTS, possibly the number of hits for that
package/package+version. First thing I've needed to do with every search
result so far is find a relevant package within the results. The search
results (and any summary page) should probably be sorted by package
name too - I'm getting results from packages starting with m before
package names starting with e.

Maybe extend the keywords to allow regexp matching on package names?

Another important step would be a way of excluding matches
within comments from the results.

The filetype seems a little confused in places too. Searching for
things in filetype:perl I get matches in debian/control and
debian/copyright.

-- 


Neil Williams
=============
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/

Attachment: pgpQ04WTfS4Yd.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: