From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andreas Enge Subject: Re: Optional runtime dependencies in Guix Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2015 19:47:30 +0100 Message-ID: <20150112184614.GA4935@debian> References: <87zjbh3arc.fsf@gnu.org> <87twzwuyn9.fsf@gnu.org> <87vbkcxhx3.fsf@gmail.com> <87fvbgrmn9.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:38208) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YAk1g-0000NF-3v for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 12 Jan 2015 13:47:44 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YAk1Z-0005Ww-Gf for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 12 Jan 2015 13:47:43 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87fvbgrmn9.fsf@gnu.org> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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?= Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 05:26:02PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > To begin with, we could have a “weechat” package with a “reasonable” > option set: > (define weechat > (make-weechat "weechat")) > > And possibly another variant with, say, all the options enabled: > (define weechat-full > (make-weechat "weechat-full" #:python? #t #:lua? #t)) So far, our policy has rather been to enable all possible inputs. I think this should be the default with the name "weechat" unaltered. If need be, one could add another package with fewer inputs under the name "weechat-small" or similar. What do others think? If there is consensus, we could formalise something in the package naming section of the manual. Apart from that, I do not see why having several scripting languages enabled is a problem; in the end, it is quite likely that they are present anyway due to one package or another (it is rather difficult to avoid perl and python these days!). So my real preference would be to not have such "...-small" packages except for outrageously big default packages (texlive comes to mind here...). > A long term possibility would be to officially support something like > Gentoo’s “USE” flags. These would be declared as part of the package, > and the build process would take them into account somehow: To me, this sounds like overkill to solve a problem that I am not convinced exists. Andreas