From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp0 ([2001:41d0:8:6d80::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms0.migadu.com with LMTPS id mOvSIRDeMGEpIgAAgWs5BA (envelope-from ) for ; Thu, 02 Sep 2021 16:22:08 +0200 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:8:6d80::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp0 with LMTPS id cA6MHRDeMGE/DgAA1q6Kng (envelope-from ) for ; Thu, 02 Sep 2021 14:22:08 +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 1E30EA2FA for ; Thu, 2 Sep 2021 16:22:08 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost ([::1]:45470 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mLnbT-0008Vh-7Q for larch@yhetil.org; Thu, 02 Sep 2021 10:22:07 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:59802) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mLnav-0007e5-44 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 02 Sep 2021 10:21:33 -0400 Received: from mailrelay.tugraz.at ([129.27.2.202]:41211) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mLnap-00042o-Pa for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 02 Sep 2021 10:21:32 -0400 Received: from [10.0.0.4] (194-118-34-199.adsl.highway.telekom.at [194.118.34.199]) by mailrelay.tugraz.at (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4H0jlZ4mvvz3wGW; Thu, 2 Sep 2021 16:21:14 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tugraz.at; s=mailrelay; t=1630592474; bh=QkSxv7auCKACfyXnVQKGiFXj+bHwu5vW3tbANB4nsmk=; h=Subject:From:To:Date:In-Reply-To:References; b=ALjWel+aQrgEQy31hQ5YXsAHjSzJXpZcLe6YZCXQl2OgSg1yBHaQxjTYfhY1AYNl4 ckeMNbj8HyezlU5lxoY/6muZngg4kvbfR7P+7jLpcdo4ZW1lqcu4CwltIlHgvlMTIm GCVJ7YaptKDV64AUIcKZSUDa1bdhM3hdLy+eQbj0= Message-ID: <3b4f86e8ca7410b939f5a8da689919d1ab42f216.camel@student.tugraz.at> Subject: Re: Can we find a better idiom for unversioned packages? From: Liliana Marie Prikler To: Maxime Devos , Sarah Morgensen , guix-devel@gnu.org Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2021 16:20:48 +0200 In-Reply-To: <4042fc2a6124d218ffefbaa9c42dfa0e388dd1cd.camel@telenet.be> References: <8635qp1j6k.fsf@mgsn.dev> <473ea45f79b94ff04327f3fdf691dd8e4a85f7ba.camel@telenet.be> <1e58de895f638d897ea89647344ef24c40ea3ec2.camel@telenet.be> <27af2d4efec4ced1e8411b1d993dbc8112d26cb7.camel@student.tugraz.at> <4042fc2a6124d218ffefbaa9c42dfa0e388dd1cd.camel@telenet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" User-Agent: Evolution 3.34.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TUG-Backscatter-control: bt4lQm5Tva3SBgCuw0EnZw X-Spam-Scanner: SpamAssassin 3.003001 X-Spam-Score-relay: -1.9 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.74 on 129.27.10.117 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=129.27.2.202; envelope-from=leo.prikler@student.tugraz.at; helo=mailrelay.tugraz.at X-Spam_score_int: -42 X-Spam_score: -4.3 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no 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: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_IN ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yhetil.org; s=key1; t=1630592528; h=from:from:sender:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:list-id:list-help: list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-post:dkim-signature; bh=QkSxv7auCKACfyXnVQKGiFXj+bHwu5vW3tbANB4nsmk=; b=ISGfEeBhIUyzXh8KGKxKvSb7DBeZQIbX8tuVQj8WTBp6V4TsobmXtIHpxVzT7cWxr1sCQG VyGYmw5JFpSnQks1tIiJr+wIPw5rvx3oOTVCpQeaQYgQUZHffJVtudg7byQqnrWyDZose+ I3uYAg4z9NVN0sBSqQdW+ANUZDUb+OP+c7bBVyQZuqprLKTDb4FsZue8wbLG34R3eBMclF +tdcyL1w6E1yiPT0AbV0RlqGUI5gxjH3Kn0BENysvx3Tngy1cvkzcdG8umZ1JS8obh3fvV wm417p+nrztV+GyVTkm2zvJ9NeJ+E2B4+lSrdc70SN5G0rKxdxuU7K5KMNLbJg== ARC-Seal: i=1; s=key1; d=yhetil.org; t=1630592528; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=RKU0OBsyRhihRoJtfKXsKgD+Kg5SOCCT7E+anj6zKK5/BWfLjkXldmiLNm0G30D1VjU0BN WAiqolG2BAQeWQQOm4HqmQGpYC3lH5koIdtjHrCDKUD/V0t/CXeWHwjFaqea0xI8WDM+Ev uRGGhkzWVSxtx34SQ1dl7JJdaCJVs6aqP8Aln7IYNpchH8dfM+PcWrDVfD1OXkMLvWqoGa nPq98x7oY/o1fHEbD3biccBlkBJsmR1q3bLTlsA9fbRaThFEtCGd9ubbcUVQlcbpeKLsen OvFBZ5tqfwRbhbyvwYUZFj2PXL8B4ndAQjtDP+bgodQKZpx5F7+n4FHH6X3VWw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=pass header.d=tugraz.at header.s=mailrelay header.b=ALjWel+a; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=student.tugraz.at; 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-Migadu-Spam-Score: -2.12 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=pass header.d=tugraz.at header.s=mailrelay header.b=ALjWel+a; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=student.tugraz.at; 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-Migadu-Queue-Id: 1E30EA2FA X-Spam-Score: -2.12 X-Migadu-Scanner: scn1.migadu.com X-TUID: uuqz/Mt9aqx6 Am Donnerstag, den 02.09.2021, 16:09 +0200 schrieb Maxime Devos: > > > > > > 2. We cannot get at the source location for the definition > > > > > > of > > > > > > 'commit' or 'revision'. This would be useful for updating > > > > > > these > > > > > > packages with `guix refresh -u`. There is a proposed patch > > > > > > [0] > > > > > > to > > > > > > work around this, but it *is* a workaround. > > > > Other versioning idioms would also be workarounds, wouldn't > > > > they? > > > > > > > > > > 3. Packages inheriting from it lose the definitions. For > > > > > > actual fields, we have e.g. `(package-version this- > > > > > > package)`, but we have no equivalent for these. > > > > What purpose would extracting those serve however? > > > > > > Not losing the revision is useful for things like > > > ;;, to be able to determine > > > the old > > > revision. (That's not about inheriting packages though.) > > Isn't that addressed by addressing the second point, though? Like, > > if > > you know the source location of the revision, you can read it back > > to > > get the value itself (or possibly even access it as-is), no? > > Indeed! The patch [0] addresses the second point. With that patch, > the proposed isn't required. But also: some > people (at least Sarah?) consider [0] a work-around, and if guix used > something like , [0] wouldn't be necessary. > > It doesn't really matter to me what we'll end up using in guix > in the long term, though in the short term, I would like something > like [0] to be merged, as it is used by the (not-yet submitted, needs > some cleanup, testing & rebasing) minetest updater, and it makes > work in more cases. That's not quite my point. Sarah said that "inheriting definitions" loses those values, which is true regardless of the merge of [0]. What you said to answer my question w.r.t. why that matters was to repeat the second point, which is addressed by [0]. In other words, what I'm asking is why specifically inheriting (as in record inheriting) is made to be such a big deal that it deserves its own point when I would personally argue that it is not at all that important. Greetings