From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp1 ([2001:41d0:8:6d80::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms0.migadu.com with LMTPS id wKeTHfe3MWG9PwAAgWs5BA (envelope-from ) for ; Fri, 03 Sep 2021 07:51:51 +0200 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:8:6d80::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp1 with LMTPS id omb5GPe3MWFseAAAbx9fmQ (envelope-from ) for ; Fri, 03 Sep 2021 05:51:51 +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 E7A4C1985D for ; Fri, 3 Sep 2021 07:51:50 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost ([::1]:36216 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mM27C-0002f9-0a for larch@yhetil.org; Fri, 03 Sep 2021 01:51:50 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:33292) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mM270-0002f1-1H for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 03 Sep 2021 01:51:38 -0400 Received: from out0.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:267::]:64758) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mM26x-0000E2-G9 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 03 Sep 2021 01:51:37 -0400 X-Report-Abuse: Please report any abuse attempt to abuse@migadu.com and include these headers. DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mgsn.dev; s=key1; t=1630648292; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to; bh=BovPz5aJ/OggTXoQdNzTeMuoCM6+tgrEmw42NmW49HA=; b=SOKu6UAr5RBE0x83FiKCdRy/zqJuND6G1mtztKa3NjmblG+HG5s32xXGuIfdA/F/L/JhF9 Zi09HQtdhGWMGHLw0KUlX2wnSTM+PNu8exG85F/vYiVrBrVm9VEdefSlpLNzJZ3KOPBBR0 pGMf/ikODi2DrzWGMsmppxFJPbKhaww= From: Sarah Morgensen To: Maxime Devos Subject: Re: Can we find a better idiom for unversioned packages? Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2021 22:51:30 -0700 In-Reply-To: Maxime Devos's message of "Thu, 02 Sep 2021 16:09:57 +0200" Message-ID: <86r1e6xl3x.fsf@mgsn.dev> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Migadu-Auth-User: iskarian@mgsn.dev Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2001:41d0:2:267::; envelope-from=iskarian@mgsn.dev; helo=out0.migadu.com 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, 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: , Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org, Liliana Marie Prikler 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=1630648311; h=from:from:sender:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:list-id:list-help: list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-post:dkim-signature; bh=BovPz5aJ/OggTXoQdNzTeMuoCM6+tgrEmw42NmW49HA=; b=fr9ZgSIU202DKcGRvucEGg1GEGR3oAGSd0zLTq6czDqPBDBULsJkNF8TmGjIQTU4rHG3jM yRbbkQ5jUhvs74PZBIQcCWzKs3LReVLZyVrTcLnEHxlfCjgbdQxcY0hA+LTtl5cI5AiNwC 3QDj3mpguqJMKC3CXPTuDjwCHV08o8w2MMEedTPnshMqGxHI0nJ9kj/lqEssvxgkpETu5F TqeiFCxRIdl4/dyFy80KmRNMaOif95ITxPC2ntjddigOcZ3OV67jUFJjDAdXEhkIDlTcxz KzRnGdgMBeYU8w/qT61FmQRAVy7YtNMabzCtY8cZ30KaIiSi+3T4vylcRxgxjw== ARC-Seal: i=1; s=key1; d=yhetil.org; t=1630648311; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=AE1GxsYLappdxBu6w1yrrKr5Lw5dHnZR3x9j+/qh+gpLrXRsjESZb5M8BbWaSFop8de2E/ JH5TRf4hbj0uNFuD0epjPuVkeRNKlnYRpDBA0q9E5saC2jNT70wiNGWszEKf7gF4o42rZE kWbYlNgK1G0l2N9qQFkIyXgczviMQBvYqiGXV3wMTw5XVz/oyxTjszhDU6CCcEwDOb/n7u Q05QHJC0KoekGJ5sR6oHzzK8Bxx4VLG88drd8YYjl1UsjjJJ211mixUX4fnIHOJCLum+Q8 HK865e9hK8FjGEbs6U1uX5xTEIAHtsJnQ0p+LQWyVaJn4vwCx0xOKQGB41NlYg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=fail ("headers rsa verify failed") header.d=mgsn.dev header.s=key1 header.b=SOKu6UAr; dmarc=fail reason="SPF not aligned (relaxed)" header.from=mgsn.dev (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-Migadu-Spam-Score: 1.18 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=fail ("headers rsa verify failed") header.d=mgsn.dev header.s=key1 header.b=SOKu6UAr; dmarc=fail reason="SPF not aligned (relaxed)" header.from=mgsn.dev (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-Migadu-Queue-Id: E7A4C1985D X-Spam-Score: 1.18 X-Migadu-Scanner: scn1.migadu.com X-TUID: Y3OxHzqVJR5v Hi Maxime, Maxime Devos writes: >> > 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. > > [0]: Despite starting this thread, I do agree that your patch would be helpful, at least in the short term, since I'd like to get git updating working sooner rather than later :) (There are a couple other usages of 'let' forms in packages, and your patch could either help or hinder getting source locations for those, depending on what semantics we want. Very much an edge case, though.) -- Sarah