GNU bug report logs - #47028
Discourage single-character package names

Previous Next

Package: guix;

Reported by: Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <me <at> tobias.gr>

Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2021 21:40:01 UTC

Severity: normal

Done: Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <me <at> tobias.gr>

Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.

Full log


View this message in rfc822 format

From: help-debbugs <at> gnu.org (GNU bug Tracking System)
To: Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <me <at> tobias.gr>
Subject: bug#47028: closed (Re: bug#47028: [PATCH 2/2] lint: Warn about
 single-character package names.)
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2021 20:42:02 +0000
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Your bug report

#47028: Discourage single-character package names

which was filed against the guix package, has been closed.

The explanation is attached below, along with your original report.
If you require more details, please reply to 47028 <at> debbugs.gnu.org.

-- 
47028: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=47028
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs <at> gnu.org with problems
[Message part 2 (message/rfc822, inline)]
From: Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <me <at> tobias.gr>
To: zimoun <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 47028-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#47028: [PATCH 2/2] lint: Warn about single-character
 package names.
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2021 22:41:24 +0200
[Message part 3 (text/plain, inline)]
zimoun writes:
> My point is: I am not even sure that “r” should be whitelisted.

I think it deserves the name, but my reasons are fuzzy and feely. 
Anyway: I added that exception for ‘r’ and pushed as 
1126bb9cf33f10f004a5f53331389c777c025e75 et al.

Kind regards,

T G-R
[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]
[Message part 5 (message/rfc822, inline)]
From: Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <me <at> tobias.gr>
To: bug-guix <at> gnu.org
Cc: Mark H Weaver <mhw <at> netris.org>
Subject: Discourage single-character package names
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2021 22:39:23 +0100
[Message part 6 (text/plain, inline)]
Mark H Weaver 写道:
> Yesterday, an obscure package called "t" was added to Guix.  We 
> should
> reject such short package names in Guix unless there's a very 
> compelling
> reason to keep them.

I completely agree (in fact I can't compel myself to find 
excusable exceptions), but this wasn't explicitly documented 
anywhere I looked.

Kind regards,

T G-R
[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

This bug report was last modified 4 years and 134 days ago.

Previous Next


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