On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 05:19:33PM +0200, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
> On 6/8/11 4:36 PM, Vikraman wrote:
> > I'm working on the `Package statistics` project this year. Till now, I
> > have managed to write a client and server to collect the following
> > information from hosts:
> Excellent, good luck with the idea! I think that better information
> about how Gentoo is actually used will greatly help improving it.
Well, that information cannot be collected automatically, can it ?
> > Is there a need to collect files installed by a package ? Doesn't PFL
> > already provide that ?
> Well, PFL is not an official Gentoo project. It might be useful, but I
> wouldn't say it's a priority.
> > Please provide some feedback on what other data should be collected, etc.
> In my opinion it's *not* about collecting as much data as possible. I
> think it's most important to get the core functionality working really
> well, and convincing as large percentage of users as possible to enable
> reporting the statistics (to make the results - hopefully - accurately
> represent the user base). Please note that in some cases it may mean
> collecting _less_ data, or thinking more about the privacy of the users.
> For me, as a developer, even a list of packages sorted by popularity
> (aka Debian/Ubuntu popcon) would be very useful.
> Ah, and maybe files in /etc/portage: package.keywords and so on. It
> could be useful to see what people are masking/unmasking, that may be an
> indication of stale stabilizations or brokenness hitting the tree.
> Anyway, I'd call it an enhancement.
> > Also, I'm starting work on the webUI, and would like some
> > recommendations for stats pages, such as:
> > * Packages installed sorted by users
> > * Top arches, keywords, profiles
> And percentage of ~arch vs arch users?
> > * Most enabled, disabled useflags per package/globally
> Also great, especially the per-package variant. It'd be also useful to
> have per-profile data, to better tune the profile defaults.
> > 
> > http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/gentoostats.git;a=commit;h=1b9697a090515d2a373e83b1094d6e08ec405c02
> I took a quick look at the code. Some random comments:
> - it uses portage Python API a lot. But it's not stable, or at least not
> guaranteed to be stable. Have you considered using helpers like portageq
> (or eventually enhancing those helpers)?
> - make the licensing super-clear (a LICENSE file, possibly some header
> in every source file, and so on)
> - how about submitting the data over HTTPS and not HTTP to better help
Fair points, thanks!
> - don't leave exception handling as a TODO; it should be a part of your
> design, not an afterthought
> - instead of or in addition to the setup.txt file, how about just
> writing the real setup.py file for distutils?
Yes, these are part of my sub-goals for next week.