From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: taylanbayirli@gmail.com (Taylan Ulrich =?utf-8?Q?Bay=C4=B1rl=C4=B1?=
	=?utf-8?Q?=2FKammer?=)
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scripts: package: Add --install-from-file option.
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 15:54:23 +0200
Message-ID: <8737zfl6y8.fsf@T420.taylan>
References: <8737zs78rs.fsf@izanagi.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me>
	<57add006a9e098fd69e269f1082262c7@hypermove.net>
	<CAJ=RwfaRCSOXypqesxUBXO63pYsOffNboV-b7quXD1TCHMKy7w@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Return-path: <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:36226)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <taylanbayirli@gmail.com>) id 1ZS3p2-0000Dd-Bw
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 09:54:33 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <taylanbayirli@gmail.com>) id 1ZS3oy-0002vQ-9J
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 09:54:32 -0400
In-Reply-To: <CAJ=RwfaRCSOXypqesxUBXO63pYsOffNboV-b7quXD1TCHMKy7w@mail.gmail.com>
	(David Thompson's message of "Wed, 19 Aug 2015 09:04:15 -0400")
List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution."
	<guix-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
To: "Thompson, David" <dthompson2@worcester.edu>
Cc: guix-devel <guix-devel@gnu.org>, guix-devel-bounces+amirouche=hypermove.net@gnu.org

"Thompson, David" <dthompson2@worcester.edu> writes:

> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 4:27 AM, Amirouche Boubekki
> <amirouche@hypermove.net> wrote:
>
>> What about dispatch `guix package -i` depending on the argument. In
>> principle there will be no "*.scm$" packages so the above could be
>>
>>       guix package -i package.scm
>>
>> The idea behind that is to keep the number of command to minimum. In this
>> case, IMO, it makes sens to merge both logic inside the same UI.
>
> That won't work because it creates ambiguities in the package spec
> syntax.  How can one tell if a package spec or a file name was passed
> with 100% accuracy?  You can't, and we'd have to use a heuristic that
> would surely fail in some awful way for someone.  It's best for this
> to be a separate argument.
>
> - Dave

Sometimes a 99.9% solution is acceptable IMO.  Packages named "foo.scm"
should be exceedingly rare in first place, and then if you also have a
file of that name in the current directory...

Another option might be to expect a slash in the string, i.e. forcing
"./" if the file's in the current directory:

    guix package -i ./package.scm

Happening to have a package with a slash in its name, ending in .scm,
and coinciding with the relative or absolute path of a file existing on
your filesystem, ought to be implausible.

Just my two cents from glancing over the discussion though.  No strong
opinions.  Additional flag is fine too by me.

Taylan