GNU bug report logs - #69587
[PATCH] doc: Add “Source Tree Structure” section.

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
To: "pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)" <pelzflorian <at> pelzflorian.de>
Cc: 69587 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: [bug#69587] [PATCH] doc: Add “Source Tree Structure” section.
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 22:45:01 +0100

Hello,

"pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)" <pelzflorian <at> pelzflorian.de> skribis:

> Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org> writes:
>>> Nice things like (guix swh) or (gnu system), (gnu build), (gnu
>>> installer), (gnu machine), or po, still seem not useful for the general
>>> populace to me.
>>
>> This is in the “Contributing” chapter, so we’re talking about a subset
>> of the general populace.  :-)
>>
>> You might argue that few current contributors care about the modules you
>> mention, but by exposing the structure of the code, my hope is that more
>> people would dare take a look and fiddle with it.

[...]

> Still I would prefer if (gnu system), (gnu build), (gnu installer), (gnu
> machine), and especially po, were not part of the list.  I expect that
> most contributors want to provide a package or (home) service with docs
> and tests.  They will not customize the operating-system record type.

I disagree here.  This section is intended for people willing to
contribute to Guix or to learn about it beyond packages (perhaps that
intention should be more clearly stated though; perhaps that’s the crux
of our difference of interpretation?).  I wouldn’t assume that this or
that part is not worthy.

If the section is deemed too long, it probably makes sense to trim it a
bit, but I don’t find it this long.

Or we can use different examples, though I would keep those that are
already documented elsewhere in the manual (like (gnu system)).

WDYT?

>> I think “murky” is a strong word, or at least it shouldn’t be
>> interpreted as meaning that the guix/gnu distinction is arbitrary.  I’ll
>> try to clarify that as well.
>
> Hmm what is the difference between, let’s say, (gnu packages) and (guix
> package)?

(guix packages) defines a <package> type and associated mechanisms (the
“package Reference” section).

(gnu packages) lets you browse packages defined in (gnu packages …),
etc.

The former is abstract; the latter is about concrete package
definitions.

>> +@code{(guix @dots{})} modules <at> footnote{For this reason, @code{(guix
>> +@dots{})}  modules must generally not depend on @code{(gnu @dots{})}
>> +modules, with one notable exception: @code{(guix build-system @dots{})}
>> +modules may look up packages at run time---e.g., @code{(guix
>> +build-system cmake)} needs to access the @code{cmake} variable at run
>> +time.}.
>
> I think the (guix build-system @dots{}) never use (gnu …)?

They do, as in the ‘cmake’ example above.

> scripts and importers do.

Oh right, that’s true.  So there’s more than one notable exception.  :-)

Ludo’.

Previous Next

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