From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andreas Enge <andreas@enge.fr>
Subject: Re: Different versions of a package in the same profile?
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2014 18:39:09 +0100
Message-ID: <20141102173909.GB6865@debian>
References: <871tptzclb.fsf@gmail.com> <87mw8glixr.fsf@gnu.org>
	<20141029222212.GD29707@debian> <87bnouf24g.fsf@gmail.com>
	<20141030074926.GA27584@debian> <877fzhg2ng.fsf@gmail.com>
	<20141030123832.GA6721@debian.eduroam.u-bordeaux.fr>
	<87lhnxgnrx.fsf_-_@gnu.org> <20141101104610.GC31318@debian>
	<871tplo6uj.fsf@gnu.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Return-path: <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:40377)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <andreas@enge.fr>) id 1Xkz7i-0005CW-F3
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 02 Nov 2014 12:39:37 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <andreas@enge.fr>) id 1Xkz7a-0005bZ-Qw
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 02 Nov 2014 12:39:30 -0500
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <871tplo6uj.fsf@gnu.org>
List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution."
	<guix-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
To: Ludovic =?iso-8859-15?Q?Court=E8s?= <ludo@gnu.org>
Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org, Alex Kost <alezost@gmail.com>

On Sun, Nov 02, 2014 at 06:22:28PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> I don’t think so.  In this thread, I rather wanted to discuss the
> implications of allowing same-named packages to be installed in the same
> profile, should we decide to go that route.
> 
> > Another idea: How about letting "guix package -u foo" upgrade only the
> > package with name foo and the latest version if there are several with the
> > same name?
> That’s a possibility, yes.
> But I wonder if there are other issues beyond -u.

Good question, I do not know. But if we allow several packages with the same
name in a profile, I do not see another possibility for "guix package -u"
than my suggestion.

There is also the question of conflicts with identical file names. They are
already there now, but their probability should be higher with identical
package names. Maybe we need to rethink the handling of conflicts also.

Andreas