Subject: [bug#63088] [PATCH v2] gnu: Add Lc0.

From: Liliana Marie Prikler <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2023 20:00:10 +0200

Am Montag, dem 11.09.2023 um 07:22 -0300 schrieb zamfofex:
> > recursive? #t is meh ._.
> > Can we work around that?
> 
> Yes, presumably easily, but I don’t think it would be a good idea in
> this case, because it isn’t used to build bundled software, but
> rather just for a small project‐specific pair of source files (that
> are in a separate repo just because they are used by other repos of
> the project too).
In that case, a comment explaining this in 1-2 lines would probably be
fine.

> > Can we use search-input-file or the like here?
> 
> Probably. Though would it be reasonable to package the network
> separately instead? Note that Lc0 is able to load various networks,
> and there is no canonical network, so maybe it would be useful to
> have it in a different package so that more can be potentially added
> in the future.
> 
> Then people could use them with something like ‘guix shell lc0 lc0-
> NETWORK_NAME’.
Sounds reasonable to me.  Do add a phrase or two about this to the lc0
description though if it doesn't even ship a basic network.

> 
> > Is Lc0 = Leela Chess Zero?  What's the connection?
> 
> “Lc0”, “Leela Chess Zero”, “LCZero”, and sometimes just “Leela Chess”
> can be used roughly interchangeably to refer to the project as a
> whole. Though, occasionally, people will use the term “Lc0”
> (sometimes capitalised as “lc0”) to refer specifically to the ‘lc0’
> executable, which can use the networks from the Leela Chess Zero
> project, but networks created by other people too, including those of
> e.g. the Maia project, see <https://github.com/CSSLab/maia-chess> and
> <https://maiachess.com>
> 
> At some point (very early on), the code for the executable was
> rewritten or otherwise largely refactored, and at the same time
> renamed from ‘lczero’ to the current ‘lc0’, so sometimes (very rarely
> nowadays), people will use the term “lc0” (or “Lc0”) to refer
> specifically to this new executable and code base, contrasting with
> the former ‘lczero’ executable and its code base.
> 
> Honestly, this all feels convoluted to me, so I usually like to use
> the terms interchangeably, and I don’t think using them differently
> in the package description is a good choice.
In that case, for the description we should probably go with "Leela
Chess Zero" or "@acronym{lc0, Leela Chess Zero}"

Cheers