From: "Leo Famulari" <leo@famulari.name>
To: "Jonathan McHugh" <indieterminacy@libre.brussels>,
"Ludovic Courtès" <ludo@gnu.org>,
"Sarah Morgensen" <iskarian@mgsn.dev>
Cc: "Christopher Baines via Development of GNU Guix and the GNU
System distribution." <guix-devel@gnu.org>
Subject: Re: Can we find a better idiom for unversioned packages?
Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2021 18:38:27 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <44d7a7d0-3676-4c9f-9654-3e8863f24226@www.fastmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <e0bee4f37f82da9fa8f8cd6bd47c7125@libre.brussels>
I think Ludo meant difftastic:
https://github.com/Wilfred/difftastic
On Wed, Sep 8, 2021, at 18:21, Jonathan McHugh wrote:
> Hi Ludo,
>
> Just checking:
>
> Is Diffstatic a real tool? It wasnt quite clear to me (and I fancy
> finding a new diff tool).
>
> ====================
> Jonathan McHugh
> indieterminacy@libre.brussels
>
> September 8, 2021 11:31 PM, "Ludovic Courtès" <ludo@gnu.org> wrote:
>
> > Hello!
> >
> > Sarah Morgensen <iskarian@mgsn.dev> skribis:
> >
> >> Currently, there are about 1500 packages defined like this:
> >>
> >> (define-public sbcl-feeder
> >> (let ((commit "b05f517d7729564575cc809e086c262646a94d34")
> >> (revision "1"))
> >> (package
> >> [...])))
> >>
> >> I feel like there are some issues with this idiom (in no particular
> >> order):
> >
> > I’m late to the party but I’ll complement previous answers. :-)
> >
> >> 1. When converting between this idiom and regularly versioned packages,
> >> the git diff shows the whole package changing because of the indentation
> >> change.
> >
> > One can use ‘git diff -w’ to work around that (or the newfangled
> > Diffstatic tool.)
> >
> >> 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.
> >
> > Right, these pieces of information are not “first-class”, except in the
> > ‘git-reference’ record (or similar) for the commit ID. Do you have
> > examples in mind where it’s insufficient?
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >> 5. The closest thing we have to a standardized way of generating
> >> versions for these packages is `(version (git-version "0.0.0" revision
> >> commit))`. We can do better than that boilerplate.
> >
> > I can sympathize with the feeling, but I’m not sure what to do. A
> > ‘vcs-version’ record as Maxime proposes seems a bit overkill to me (and
> > it would probably have an impact on performance, build times, and
> > whatnot.)
> >
> >> 6. Not a direct complaint, but I feel like the overall package interface
> >> was designed before straight-from-vcs unversioned packages were so
> >> common, and so this idiom developed organically to work around that.
> >
> > Sure, though “straight-from-vcs” and “unversioned” are two different
> > things: I’m fine with the former, but the latter equates to upstream
> > telling its users “go find a revision that works for you”. I think
> > releases still make sense for any non-trivial piece of software.
> >
> > As noted in the manual (info "(guix) Version Numbers"), packages built
> > from arbitrary commits were supposed to be exceptional. Perhaps the
> > reason we’re having this conversation now is that development practices
> > are evolving towards what looks like chaos. :-)
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Ludo’.
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-09-08 22:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-08-31 19:57 Can we find a better idiom for unversioned packages? Sarah Morgensen
2021-08-31 21:20 ` Maxime Devos
2021-09-01 12:11 ` Xinglu Chen
2021-09-01 16:29 ` Maxime Devos
2021-09-01 13:33 ` Liliana Marie Prikler
2021-09-01 16:39 ` Maxime Devos
2021-09-01 18:34 ` Liliana Marie Prikler
2021-09-02 14:09 ` Maxime Devos
2021-09-02 14:20 ` Liliana Marie Prikler
2021-09-02 14:34 ` Maxime Devos
2021-09-01 19:48 ` Jonathan McHugh
2021-09-01 21:47 ` Liliana Marie Prikler
2021-09-02 13:32 ` Maxime Devos
2021-09-02 7:53 ` Jonathan McHugh
2021-09-02 9:25 ` Liliana Marie Prikler
2021-09-01 10:55 ` Xinglu Chen
2021-09-01 15:37 ` Leo Famulari
2021-09-01 16:50 ` Xinglu Chen
2021-09-02 16:51 ` Leo Famulari
2021-09-02 17:29 ` Leo Famulari
2021-09-03 16:11 ` Xinglu Chen
2021-09-03 16:35 ` Leo Famulari
2021-09-03 16:57 ` Leo Famulari
2021-09-03 20:03 ` Xinglu Chen
2021-09-04 21:00 ` Leo Famulari
2021-09-08 21:15 ` Ludovic Courtès
2021-09-02 17:08 ` Leo Famulari
2021-09-08 21:28 ` Ludovic Courtès
2021-09-08 22:21 ` Jonathan McHugh
2021-09-08 22:38 ` Leo Famulari [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2021-09-03 5:51 Sarah Morgensen
2021-09-03 21:14 Sarah Morgensen
2021-09-03 22:11 ` Liliana Marie Prikler
2021-09-04 12:32 ` Taylan Kammer
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://guix.gnu.org/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=44d7a7d0-3676-4c9f-9654-3e8863f24226@www.fastmail.com \
--to=leo@famulari.name \
--cc=guix-devel@gnu.org \
--cc=indieterminacy@libre.brussels \
--cc=iskarian@mgsn.dev \
--cc=ludo@gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).