GNU bug report logs - #26264
[PATCH 0/1] Use '@' to separate name, version in package-full-name

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Alex Sassmannshausen <alex.sassmannshausen <at> gmail.com>
To: Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <me <at> tobias.gr>, Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 26264 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#26264: [PATCH 0/1] Use '@' to separate name, version in package-full-name
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2017 20:41:40 +0200

Hey Tobias,

Tobias Geerinckx-Rice writes:

> Alex,
>
> (I'm tempted to CC bug #26239 to mirror this discussion there, but I'm
> not sure if debbugs would DTRT.)

Right — sorry, not sure what the best approach is for that!
>
> On 26/03/17 14:25, Alex Sassmannshausen wrote:
>> There are several other approaches that could be taken:
>> 
>> * change the behaviour of package-full-name by default to use '@'.
>
> This is the tabula-rasa (well, ʕノ•ᴥ•ʔノ ︵ ┻━┻) approach I took myself.
>
>> This would result in significant semantic changes in different places
>> in Guix, where '-' is expected.
>
> Could you expand on what these are?

The example I encountered which caused me to bail (after having adapted
a few unit tests, e.g. in tests/profiles.scm, to expect the new name
format), is at `gnu/packages/commencement.scm`, line 234 ff (in
`gcc-boot0`):
-----------------8<------------------>8----------------
                   ,@(map (lambda (lib)
                            ;; Drop trailing letters, as gmp-6.0.0a unpacks
                            ;; into gmp-6.0.0.
                            `(symlink ,(string-trim-right
                                        (package-full-name lib)
                                        char-set:letter)
                                      ,(package-name lib)))
                          (list gmp-6.0 mpfr mpc))))
-----------------8<------------------>8----------------

It seems `package-full-name` is here used to write symlinks.  I'm afraid
I don't understand the context well enough to ascertain what effect
changing this to '@' based writing would have.

> My assumptions were:
>
>   - This touches mainly (only? but then I don't use fancy things
>     like emacs-guix) UI messages, or I missed it.

Right, that's what I had hoped too.

>   - If someone's scripts do rely on parsing this kind of output, they're
>     living on borrowed time, and will need to fix their scripts anyway.

Well… I guess it all depends on whether the function is intended for
file-system or UI name generation, and whether file-system filenames
should have a different format from UI names…

>   - ‘-’'s been deprecated for quite a long while, and the next
>     core-updates cycle is a good time to purge the last remnants of it.
>     Of course, this patch is about 2 cycles old by now...

Right, agreed, in the UI context; don't know about filename schemes.

>   - If we're rebuilding the whole world for this we should get it right.

Agreed.

HTH,

Alex

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.