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 ms0.migadu.com with LMTPS id sBIEKkzcMGFAHgAAgWs5BA (envelope-from ) for ; Thu, 02 Sep 2021 16:14:36 +0200 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 4OW5JUzcMGFkBgAA1q6Kng (envelope-from ) for ; Thu, 02 Sep 2021 14:14:36 +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 5EE96A23E for ; Thu, 2 Sep 2021 16:14:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost ([::1]:34250 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mLnUB-0000tI-HR for larch@yhetil.org; Thu, 02 Sep 2021 10:14:35 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:57106) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mLnPo-0000mq-Ea for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 02 Sep 2021 10:10:04 -0400 Received: from baptiste.telenet-ops.be ([2a02:1800:120:4::f00:13]:35438) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mLnPl-0002ft-Tx for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 02 Sep 2021 10:10:04 -0400 Received: from ptr-bvsjgyjmffd7q9timvx.18120a2.ip6.access.telenet.be ([IPv6:2a02:1811:8c09:9d00:aaf1:9810:a0b8:a55d]) by baptiste.telenet-ops.be with bizsmtp id p29y250090mfAB40129yn2; Thu, 02 Sep 2021 16:09:58 +0200 Message-ID: <4042fc2a6124d218ffefbaa9c42dfa0e388dd1cd.camel@telenet.be> Subject: Re: Can we find a better idiom for unversioned packages? From: Maxime Devos To: Liliana Marie Prikler , Sarah Morgensen , guix-devel@gnu.org Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2021 16:09:57 +0200 In-Reply-To: <27af2d4efec4ced1e8411b1d993dbc8112d26cb7.camel@student.tugraz.at> References: <8635qp1j6k.fsf@mgsn.dev> <473ea45f79b94ff04327f3fdf691dd8e4a85f7ba.camel@telenet.be> <1e58de895f638d897ea89647344ef24c40ea3ec2.camel@telenet.be> <27af2d4efec4ced1e8411b1d993dbc8112d26cb7.camel@student.tugraz.at> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-VCZ0IU9OAHps1obs6iVn" User-Agent: Evolution 3.34.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=telenet.be; s=r21; t=1630591798; bh=gdZKA+04EcTdEyf5LscBfeRql6fhmceLPHywI7j65Ww=; h=Subject:From:To:Date:In-Reply-To:References; b=Egh4huUta4eGmC4+bKTqs8t2gtuDeFpe+Y8RWS0bg9dnewDCpVu9gbd2COTt6jRfA RLe4Oay67m7IHMkStd7Qq8K9yKHRxFFNvOdJORPmpcnmh1tKuaa2FnN2fmmWvDIKM0 /37xiwFj5wFOSxAKUdu/jWH/ewf+HAFECH6n/jvD9voxeR+5WSdLCH4VM16341W4bT 9Rg6E2OMV9vIiUU+2P/zL3NpsRA/cC/c+zORojVjjOzp1ilOJeru4oxbxyDgad0I1y zEBeUZ5SFmZQLHS0TxcpSyYaj1v6hME4D9I4GpXNPIKLG1EGkgAD3k0mfFi0K1Jt8h bG3kU0+AARuTw== Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2a02:1800:120:4::f00:13; envelope-from=maximedevos@telenet.be; helo=baptiste.telenet-ops.be X-Spam_score_int: -27 X-Spam_score: -2.8 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.8 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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=1630592076; 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:in-reply-to:in-reply-to: references:references:list-id:list-help:list-unsubscribe: list-subscribe:list-post:dkim-signature; bh=gdZKA+04EcTdEyf5LscBfeRql6fhmceLPHywI7j65Ww=; b=ElPTiqKFoS2MBcrlUX4iRl+t0/ACCoxX0i9NWoY8OxTJOMTjs6Df8yH2wUZYTgC3LgvHXr L7EDVsjFWQ2AL4ANXFJ/4jkMHamBTA+Pp9+MCYrbDw/878u8CpwGYL/+Z2FVVI0A40rGxF e69xLG4g/F2lFJ+WvGLK01w6oxdtoWJd+Si2eJ26/q4xcvHCw0SLGjgZW62lkRYAx3h1il EdTZGueTp4eHiGLPSAZ/Fh7+NdQYxcO28ZFJkFOfsMSJTVU4phrJ3BiznhcQtNNviNU7qF w3vRVqx40UbJcc7ftM230Jd08DoEbAH1gpSQR4xzj2s6Kdts5L3H9kiBH3ufaQ== ARC-Seal: i=1; s=key1; d=yhetil.org; t=1630592076; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=lGcukppg9q3Zu3Tv7z4r45hkAZi+PXv2HcIacB7GOZ3IaxbS2VAWjjSnvBKD4CUkIU3GP3 lBhk0H01rc+I8YkFU0dwYAJH2NQvTquWwWnN3SHOSRxit7755O325Y0gKgOpcvUqsA9IxB PD8se2Ih/kbBFuk6UrxXHnYpTF2L+CMecW0pa05tHrxHVzhdJBnlbW9ezrLi3SuGpfCfb3 mzeiW7pQaLJdgZOYPeg8TQtFbxH/PA1o13GaKEGJCmlPYJCGKzsdcHYE7iQW0NpGSdYLjN E4KUdfO7yb1j9a4GfphM7ntKawUWP6rdV2Hq7Vvrzbrdjoo5+YCnO6fvFMPrHQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=pass header.d=telenet.be header.s=r21 header.b=Egh4huUt; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=telenet.be; 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: -4.22 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=pass header.d=telenet.be header.s=r21 header.b=Egh4huUt; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=telenet.be; 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: 5EE96A23E X-Spam-Score: -4.22 X-Migadu-Scanner: scn1.migadu.com X-TUID: EynkkG2tjWF1 --=-VCZ0IU9OAHps1obs6iVn Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > > > > 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? > > >=20 > > > > > 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?=20 > >=20 > > Not losing the revision is useful for things like=20 > > ;, 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. [0]: Greetings, Maxime. --=-VCZ0IU9OAHps1obs6iVn Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iI0EABYKADUWIQTB8z7iDFKP233XAR9J4+4iGRcl7gUCYTDbNhccbWF4aW1lZGV2 b3NAdGVsZW5ldC5iZQAKCRBJ4+4iGRcl7mQyAP9JgQ4Ys/qU1qJqyBvACoODRsYu Innskdu6hv2cMOBCmQD+N5V97LFa/XDKitIC/+zdW2U6wpJ4tGrIXuTuGTQU7gU= =7npx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-VCZ0IU9OAHps1obs6iVn--