Re: package dependencies

[Pjotr Prins <pjotr.public12@thebird.nl>]

The problem with the main text is that it is written from the view
point of technology. I would like something more human that reads like
an instruction for packagers. Be great if we had something useful
there, otherwise questions will be asked again and again :). And I
will have to point to guix-notes every time.

I agree my version is less accurate, but it acts like a summing up and
(actually) is precisely the way I look at these statements. We can
have both. I am not saying we should replace your section.

Anyway, maybe I am the only one seeing it like this.

Pj.

On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 09:58:19AM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Pjotr Prins <pjotr.public12@thebird.nl> skribis:
> 
> > Thanks Ludo. I still think it could be made a little clearer from the packager's 
> > perspective. How about concluding it with something like:
> >
> > In short, to create a package, by default you should use 'inputs' for
> > dependencies. Use 'native-inputs' for tools used at build-time, but
> > not at runtime and use propagated-inputs when the other two do not
> > suffice.
> 
> This is certainly shorter, but the problem I have with that is that it
> does not accurately explain what’s going on.  The current text is
> admittedly more verbose, but I think it is more accurate.
> 
> Hope that makes sense.
> 
> Ludo’.
> 

--