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

[Popcon-developers] Bug#291747: popularity-contest: Please give stats on source packages as well



--0eh6TmSyL6TZE2Uz
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Salut Bill,

On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 11:53:37PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 11:24:31PM +0100, Martin Quinson wrote:
> > I am one of the authors of the www.debian.org/intl/l10n pages which
> > display some stats about the translation of the debian packages. To make
> > those pages more useful to translators, we were recently asked to sort =
the
> > packages not alphabetically but based on their popularity. It would help
> > at least small translation teams to choose which file to translate
> > first.
> >=20
> > The issue is that the stats I maintain are sorted by source packages
> > while yours are for bin packages. I thus wrote a tiny perl script to get
> > the missing info from apt files and give me a ranking of the source
> > packages.=20
>=20
> Hello Martin,
>=20
> It is certainly possible to provide statistic per source package on
> popcon.debian.org, and I will try to add this feature.
>=20
> However, there are a couple of issues here, similar to the issue with
> the Maintainers ranking:
>=20
> 1) popcon reports include only data about binaries packages, so the
> source package name need to be derivated from Packages files, but we
> might not use the same release Packages than the one used for the report
> and source package might have changed names between release. This is=20
> probably not a concern for you.

Yes, what is important to me is that we rank all the source packages. I
would remove from the ranking the "not in sid" package (or move them to the
end of the ranking). It's at least the easiest to do.

> 2) How do you define the popularity of source packages ?=20
> As the sum of the popularity of each binaries packages ?
> This is what is used for Maintainers ranking currently.

It makes sense for maintainers, but I would say that for source package, we
should use the max of all achieved ranking. I'd say that it's the metric
which would help the translators looking for which package to translate. I'm
not completely sure, in fact. Doing 2 rankings is also easy, but I'm not
sure it's worthing our time.

> > PS: I agree my 'patch' tag may be a bit lying since it's only a proof of
> > concept ;)
>=20
> It is OK, but please don't abuse the 'patch' tag. This tag is meant for=
=20
> people doing NMU or QA to quickly find bugs that are easy to fix.
> This is not the case here. A proper patch would be made against the
> popcon.pl script that generate the pages.

Yeah, you're right. I'll remove it.

Bye, Mt.

--0eh6TmSyL6TZE2Uz
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFB9qN1IiC/MeFF8zQRAlxrAJsF5ziGAenG6ea/MlBZA+zlN4KdbQCfer4K
f7ap07H0M5SskF/y6Q2bGPU=
=wITv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--0eh6TmSyL6TZE2Uz--




Reply to: