GNU bug report logs - #48237
[PATCH] gnu: emacs-consult: Add ‘emacs-ve

Previous Next

Full log

Message #32 received at 48237 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>
To: Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler <at> gmail.com>
Cc: Arun Isaac <arunisaac <at> systemreboot.net>, 48237 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
 Xinglu Chen <public <at> yoctocell.xyz>
Subject: Re: [bug#48237] [PATCH] gnu: emacs-consult: Add
 ‘emacs-ve
Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2021 19:17:59 -0400

Hello,

Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler <at> gmail.com> writes:

> Am Montag, den 06.09.2021, 13:51 -0400 schrieb Maxim Cournoyer:
>> Hello Arun,
>> 
>> Xinglu Chen <public <at> yoctocell.xyz> writes:
>> 
>> > On Wed, Aug 11 2021, Arun Isaac wrote:
>> > 
>> > > Hi all,
>> > > 
>> > > I actually think we should not add emacs-vertico to the
>> > > propagated-inputs, and remove emacs-flycheck and emacs-selectrum
>> > > as well. All these are optional dependencies, and we should leave
>> > > it to the user to install the ones they want. At least in this
>> > > specific case, the three packages (flycheck, selectrum and
>> > > vertico) are the kind the user would want to explicitly install.
>> > > They aren't backend libraries that ought to remain invisible to
>> > > the user.
>> > > 
>> > > In fact, this is the version of emacs-consult I have installed in
>> > > my profile.
>> 
>> Guix packages typically come as featureful as possible unless there
>> are good reasons not too (to minimize the closure size, for
>> example).  In this case, the added optional dependencies seem to have
>> negligible effect on the closure size, according to `guix size`; I'd
>> be in favor to keep the optional dependencies specified for that
>> reason, unless there are other considerations that I'm missing.
> While closure size is normally a good metric, with interpreted
> languages like Emacs Lisp you have the added baggage of *propagating*
> inputs, thereby installing stuff at user (or system) level, that the
> user did not actually ask for.  My personal take on those is to provide
> them as inputs where necessary to compile, but not actually propagate
> them where not necessary to run.

Thanks for explaining.  It makes sense, although there would probably be
exceptions.  I'm thinking for example about emacs-elpy, for which not
propagating optional dependencies would render the package nearly
useless out of the box.

> For example, an Emacs package might require emacs-dash to function at
> all and might install some autocompletion stuff with
> emacs-autocomplete or emacs-company (perhaps even both).  emacs-dash
> absolutely must be propagated, but unless you're already using
> autocomplete or company and thus have them in your manifest, you
> probably don't want them to be installed by emacs-foo.  Does this make
> sense?

From a purity sense, yes, but propagating autocomplete or company
wouldn't cause any problems in practice, no?

As another possible option to explore to avoid propagation could be to
develop a runpath equivalent for the Emacs compiled format (.elc).  More
work, but more definitive!

Thank you,

Maxim

Previous Next

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