Rename ghc-pandoc to pandoc

Reason: it is used standalone to convert between formats.

--

Cheers

Swedebugia

swedebugia@riseup.net writes:

I agree. What do other people think?

--

Pierre Neidhardt

Pierre Neidhardt ???

[Thumbs-up emoji]

Kind regards,

T G-R

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 11:06:30AM +0100, Pierre Neidhardt wrote:

This is language specific, but like other language-specific packages

this is a package people would specifically search for as 'pandoc' and I

agree, it should be renamed.

--

Efraim Flashner <efraim@flashner.co.il> ????? ?????

GPG key = A28B F40C 3E55 1372 662D 14F7 41AA E7DC CA3D 8351

Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed on emails sent or received unencrypted

Pierre Neidhardt <mail@ambrevar.xyz> writes:

I agree.

We should also rename all uses of ghc-pandoc in the same patch.

--

Ricardo

Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net> writes:

Oops! I'll resend patch 39798.

--

Pierre Neidhardt

Done.

See patch patch 39798.

--

Pierre Neidhardt

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 12:23:14 +0200, Efraim Flashner wrote:

Ah, for the record, I had searched for pandoc using `guix package -s

pandoc` in the past and didn't find what I was looking for, and so fell

back to a Debian system. It turns out what I wanted was ghc-pandoc

after all.

But if I would have put a little bit more effort into looking, perhaps I

would have figured that out; I was in a hurry.

Thanks for making this change!

--

Mike Gerwitz

Free Software Hacker+Activist | GNU Maintainer & Volunteer

GPG: D6E9 B930 028A 6C38 F43B 2388 FEF6 3574 5E6F 6D05

Hi Mike,

On Thu, 27 Feb 2020 at 02:23, Mike Gerwitz <mtg@gnu.org> wrote:

Thank you for pointing the issue.

My remark is *not* about the rename which seems fine. For the very

same reason than the "git-annex" software is named 'git-annex' and not

'ghc-git-annex'.

Well, your comment is pointing: a) that the description is badly

written and b) the 'relevance' score is too rough.

The command "guix search pandoc" returns as the highest ranked

package: ghc-pandoc-citeproc with the relevance score of 17. The

package of interest 'ghc-pandoc' appears at the 6th position with a

relevance score of 8. (And after emacs-pandoc-mode, ghc-pandoc-types,

emacs-ox-pandoc and python-pandocfilters; well less relevant packages,

IMO.)

Why? Because the number of occurrences of the term 'pandoc' in

synopsis+description+name.

ghc-pandoc-citeproc: 1+5+1

ghc-pandoc: 0+2+1

To be precise, the score uses weights and so it reads:

ghc-pandoc-citeproc: 3*1 + 2*5 + 4*1 = 17

ghc-pandoc: 3*0 + 2*2 + 4*1 = 8

And the rename bumps the score because there is an additional weight

(5) for exact match (which normally happens only for the 'name'

field).

ghc-pandoc-citeproc: 3*1 + 2*5 + 4*1 = 17

pandoc: 3*0 + 2*2 + 4*1*5 = 24

It apparently fixes the issue and now the package named 'pandoc' will

show up first. But it is an artefact because it is easy* to find other

weights that invalidate this expected ranking; and the current weights

are a working rule of thumbs but not deeply thought, AFAIK.

*For example instead of 5, let choose 2, then the score becomes:

3*0+2*2+4*1*2=12 which is less than 17. Well, not so easy because 2 is

the same as 'description' and it seems less natural; i.e., it appears

more natural to have a high weight for an exact match. But the point

is: it is possible to find another working rule of thumb which will

not return the expected result for all the packages.

The real problem is not the non-obvious name (ghc-pandoc instead of

simply pandoc) but it is: a) some descriptions are badly written and

b) the 'relevance' scoring function is not enough "smart" to detect

them.

All the best,

simon

On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 14:10:15 +0100, zimoun wrote:

[...]

Thank you for taking the time to explain this.

--

Mike Gerwitz

Hi,

On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 12:57, Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net> wrote:

Commit d4e4a3824d380e576b56a74aa714db205fcc59a4 adds pandoc.

The packages:

- ruby-pandoc-ruby

- rapicorn

- ganeti

- manuskript

- emacs-org-web-tools

- emacs-ox-pandoc

do not use pandoc instead of ghc-pandoc; I do not know if it matters or

if they need to also switch. More all Haskell packages in

haskell-xyz.scm.

Since ghc-pandoc is still here and even pandoc inherits from it, I

propose to close.

All the best,

simon

zimoun <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> writes:

If these packages only use the “pandoc” executable they should use the

“pandoc” package instead of “ghc-pandoc”. “ghc-pandoc” is only meant

for Haskell packages that use Pandoc as a library. This is a much rarer

case, so we can assume that most packages should use “pandoc” instead of

“ghc-pandoc”.

--

Ricardo

Dear,

On Wed, 09 Sep 2020 at 18:11, Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net> wrote:

The packages: …

… now uses ’pandoc’ instead of ’ghc-pandoc’, see:

c22c6de453 gnu: rapicorn: Use pandoc instead of ghc-pandoc.

885332832c gnu: ganeti: Use pandoc instead of ghc-pandoc.

5dc5a3116b gnu: manuskript: Use pandoc instead of ghc-pandoc.

991c61678b gnu: emacs-org-web-tools: Use pandoc instead of ghc-pandoc.

d37279ee1e gnu: emacs-ox-pandoc: Use pandoc instead of ghc-pandoc.

8cc8e584ab gnu: ruby-pandoc-ruby: Use pandoc instead of ghc-pandoc.

The only non-Haskell package remaining is ’gnu/packages/mail.scm

(muchsync)’. Once this package is done (see #43848 [1]), we should be

able to close this bug, I guess.

[1] http://issues.guix.gnu.org/issue/43848

All the best,

simon

On Wed, 07 Oct 2020 at 17:27, zimoun <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> wrote:

Done by http://issues.guix.gnu.org/issue/43848#1, see 8514dfdee6.

Closing.

Thanks,

simon