Subject: bug#62698: closed (Re: bug#62698: bind:utils)

From: [email-masked] (GNU bug Tracking System)
Date: Thu, 04 May 2023 12:44:02 +0000

Your bug report

#62698: bind:utils

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 [email-masked].

-- 
62698: https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=62698
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact [email-masked] with problems

Subject: Re: bug#62698: bind:utils
From: Maxim Cournoyer <[email-masked]>
To: Brian Cully <[email-masked]>
Cc: Αντώνιος Τσώλης<[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 04 May 2023 08:43:34 -0400
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>

Hi Brian,

Brian Cully <[email-masked]> writes:

> Maxim Cournoyer <[email-masked]> writes:
>
>> Thanks for finding the problem.  Should we leave this bug open until
>> specification->package+output is properly documented in our manual,
>> with
>> an example?  If yes, would you like to try your hand at adding it?
>
> I've looked at this briefly, and can't figure out a good place to
> document this (I'm also not particularly good with TexInfo).

Hm, looking at '(guix) Packages with Multiple Outputs', we already have
an example, which simply append packages and (list package "output")
lists, so perhaps that should be preferred instead.  The
'specification->package+output' procedure mostly appears to be used
internally, in (guix scripts environment) for example.

> I'm okay with closing the bug. Though I will say that I think this
> procedure is a bit of a foot-gun. Multiple value returns are always
> kind of weird, and in this particular case I don't see the value at
> all; the only reason to use ‘specification->package+output’ would be
> to get both the package and the output, so the minor advantages of
> multi-value returns are obviated. On top of that, does this even get
> used outside of system/home definitions? And in those places you
> always want a list.
>
> I realize a lot of code uses the current semantics, so changing them
> would be extremely difficult at this late stage. It's worth thinking
> about adding another procedure that does the expected thing (returning
> a list of package and output), IMHO, and transitioning over to that.

Note that for user profiles, it seems better to use manifest with the
convenient 'specifications->manifest' procedure that allows directly
providing package name/outputs via a "bind:utils" specification, for
example.

Closing!

-- 
Thanks,
Maxim

Subject: bind:utils
From: Αντώνιος Τσώλης<[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2023 14:43:29 +0300
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>

The bind:utils (dig, host, nslookup) are not copied/included in any bin
path.