From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?utf-8?Q?Ludovic_Court=C3=A8s?= Subject: Re: How should ambiguous package specifications be handled? Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2020 18:35:44 +0100 Message-ID: <8736c3a173.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87k15ippk9.fsf@cbaines.net> <87r1zqmskn.fsf@nckx> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:41697) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ivPLg-0005lt-9A for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 25 Jan 2020 12:35:57 -0500 In-Reply-To: <87r1zqmskn.fsf@nckx> (Tobias Geerinckx-Rice's message of "Thu, 23 Jan 2020 10:26:48 +0100") 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+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Tobias Geerinckx-Rice Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org Hello, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice skribis: > Christopher Baines =E5=86=99=E9=81=93=EF=BC=9A [...] >> Given there do seem to be ways of avoiding these ambiguous package >> specifications, would it be helpful to have a lint warning that >> identifies a package as being ambiguous (as it shares the name and >> version with another package)? > > That's a good idea at the very least. I don't think such duplication > is ever justified. I agree, a =E2=80=98lint=E2=80=99 warning would be nice. However, I think that tools like Cuirass and the Data Service must be able to cope with duplicates; they should not consider name+version as a unique key for packages. Ludo=E2=80=99.