From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp0 ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms11 with LMTPS id P/GkDT7Ft16pXwAA0tVLHw (envelope-from ) for ; Sun, 10 May 2020 09:11:26 +0000 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp0 with LMTPS id qGrEKEvFt170HAAA1q6Kng (envelope-from ) for ; Sun, 10 May 2020 09:11:39 +0000 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 65C3F9400CB for ; Sun, 10 May 2020 09:11:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:39188 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jXhzm-0004nQ-3Y for larch@yhetil.org; Sun, 10 May 2020 05:11:38 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:43568) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jXhze-0004n9-5e for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 10 May 2020 05:11:30 -0400 Received: from aibo.runbox.com ([91.220.196.211]:34928) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jXhzc-0007DZ-Eb for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 10 May 2020 05:11:29 -0400 Received: from [10.9.9.204] (helo=mailfront22.runbox) by mailtransmit02.runbox with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jXhzY-0005xe-CP; Sun, 10 May 2020 11:11:24 +0200 Received: by mailfront22.runbox with esmtpsa [Authenticated alias (924257)] (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) id 1jXhz6-00024P-1i; Sun, 10 May 2020 11:10:56 +0200 Date: Sun, 10 May 2020 11:10:55 +0200 From: Nikita Gillmann To: Josh Marshall Subject: Re: Should guix track package aliases? Message-ID: <20200510091055.pdceleubjg76fsr6@hex> Mail-Followup-To: Josh Marshall , guix-devel References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Received-SPF: pass client-ip=91.220.196.211; envelope-from=nikita@n0.is; helo=aibo.runbox.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/05/10 05:11:24 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = ??? X-Spam_score_int: -25 X-Spam_score: -2.6 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.6 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=_AUTOLEARN X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: guix-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: guix-devel Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" X-Scanner: scn0 X-Spam-Score: 0.59 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=none; dmarc=fail reason="SPF not aligned (relaxed), No valid DKIM" header.from=n0.is (policy=none); spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org X-Scan-Result: default: False [0.59 / 13.00]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; GENERIC_REPUTATION(0.00)[-0.53902294308142]; DWL_DNSWL_FAIL(0.00)[209.51.188.17:server fail]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip4:209.51.188.0/24:c]; IP_REPUTATION_HAM(0.00)[asn: 22989(0.08), country: US(-0.00), ip: 209.51.188.17(-0.54)]; TO_DN_ALL(0.00)[]; MX_GOOD(-0.50)[cached: eggs.gnu.org]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; MAILLIST(-0.20)[mailman]; FREEMAIL_TO(0.00)[gmail.com]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_FAIL(0.00)[209.51.188.17:server fail]; SUBJECT_ENDS_QUESTION(1.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:22989, ipnet:209.51.188.0/24, country:US]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; TAGGED_FROM(0.00)[larch=yhetil.org]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_FIVE(0.00)[6]; FROM_NEQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[nikita@n0.is,guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; FORGED_RECIPIENTS_MAILLIST(0.00)[]; TAGGED_RCPT(0.00)[]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; HAS_LIST_UNSUB(-0.01)[]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; RWL_MAILSPIKE_POSSIBLE(0.00)[209.51.188.17:from]; MID_RHS_NOT_FQDN(0.50)[]; FORGED_SENDER_MAILLIST(0.00)[]; DMARC_POLICY_SOFTFAIL(0.10)[n0.is : SPF not aligned (relaxed), No valid DKIM,none] X-TUID: WBTC1QsrokDN Hi, I'm not sure if that's something guix needs to be aware of. If the name differs very much and guix naming conventions differ plus it can not be found through any of the fields, it makes sense. But you probably don't want to track the different conventions used by various package managers as it is not really low-effort without knowing written and unwritten conventions and where to find them. just my initial thoughts on this, knowing a fair share of PMs. Josh Marshall transcribed 2.5K bytes: > I'm starting to collect software that needs packaging, and one thing I'm > running into is that naming conventions between the source project, various > distros, and guix itself have some drift. Something which seems low effort > but would ease translating between various nomenclatures would be to track > package aliases. These would be non-canonical in guix, but like shells > sometimes making suggestions as to what program you might have intended to > type would make life easier. > > The approach which I think makes the most sense is to add an optional but > encouraged field in package definitions which takes a list of alternative > package names. When using `guix search` this field could also be > evaluated, and when `guix package -i` is invoked and the target does not > exist, these aliases could be searched through for similar names to the > non-existing target and suggest the actual package they might have intended. > > This appears that it could be low effort, not interfere with any commands, > not really change the interface, and make life easier. Anybody have any > thoughts as to whether this would be a good idea or not?