Hi, Quoting Paul Wise (2015-07-17 09:42:19) > On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 1:32 PM, Johannes Schauer wrote: > > Correct. My motivation to add this was something I forgot to mention in my > > initial report, but this is just an implementation detail: dose3 outputs > > its results in yaml format. Implementation wise, it would be easiest if > > qa.d.o/dose would just dump the raw data that dose3 generates in its own > > output format without any further processing. That data then would of > > course not include any urls and that's why I mentioned the stable URLs. > > I think for the tracker we would want a custom format, in case the > dose3 raw data format/schema changes. right. I think that makes sense. > > I am fighting with "human-readable results pages" myself for years (See > > http://bootstrap.debian.net/cross.html for example) and found that the > > graphical display that Ralf created for qa.d.o/dose is superior to any other > > that I have ever seen so far (including the Perl implementation on qa.d.o which > > does not give me a proper explanation of the problem). If you know a more > > "human readable" solution to display complex situations like this: > > > > https://qa.debian.org/dose/debcheck/src_unstable_main/1437022805/packages/apertium-eo-ca.html > > If that page mentioned Depends/Build-Depends/etc instead of using > arrows it might be more understandable. but will also become quite crowded. Maybe it would help to have a link which gives a short explanation of how to read the overviews. The only possible meanings for the arrows are Depends/Pre-Depends or Build-Depends/Build-Depends-Indep/Build-Depends-Arch. Do you think it's important to inform about from which field a dependency is coming from? Or are you only saying that it is not obvious that the arrow is describing a dependency relationship? > Also a proper graph ouput with graphviz might be more understandable. dose3 can currenly output explanation graphs (in dot format) like this (rendered as png here): https://mister-muffin.de/p/Ay6S.png which in this case, explains this conflict: https://qa.debian.org/dose/debcheck/unstable_main/1437109207/packages/accessodf.html Do you have any suggestions of how this graph output can be improved? Then I can make the necessary improvements in dose3. Also, currently, only distcheck can output explanation graphs. But I will add the same functionality to buildcheck if you think it's useful. Thanks! cheers, josch
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: signature