From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=)
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Suggest `guix.scm' for upstream maintainers.
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 15:21:19 +0100
Message-ID: <87a8m514f4.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <87twkfcprd.fsf@drakenvlieg.flower> <87y49qtj4p.fsf@gnu.org>
	<CAJ=Rwfajhiyg5CuKmaPUYSNd-wnsbpFFdJDHw7X3TzTpBZvgYQ@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:36336)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1aeNwX-0005u2-LF
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 09:21:30 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1aeNwW-0000e7-PQ
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 09:21:29 -0500
In-Reply-To: <CAJ=Rwfajhiyg5CuKmaPUYSNd-wnsbpFFdJDHw7X3TzTpBZvgYQ@mail.gmail.com>
	(David Thompson's message of "Thu, 10 Mar 2016 12:40:59 -0500")
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>

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

> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 11:03 AM, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s <ludo@gnu.org> wro=
te:
>> Jan Nieuwenhuizen <janneke@gnu.org> skribis:
>>
>>> From fc6dd2108dae76e09e1bfcd6d04c36943469434f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>>> From: Jan Nieuwenhuizen <janneke@gnu.org>
>>> Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2016 22:18:48 +0100
>>> Subject: [PATCH] Suggest `guix.scm' for upstream maintainers.
>>>
>>> * doc/guix.texi (Invoking guix package): Suggest `guix.scm'.
>>> ---
>>>  doc/guix.texi | 2 +-
>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/doc/guix.texi b/doc/guix.texi
>>> index 06b40fa..f23c7fc 100644
>>> --- a/doc/guix.texi
>>> +++ b/doc/guix.texi
>>> @@ -1350,7 +1350,7 @@ As an example, @var{file} might contain a definit=
ion like this
>>>  @verbatiminclude package-hello.scm
>>>  @end example
>>>
>>> -Developers may find it useful to include such a @file{package.scm} file
>>> +Developers may find it useful to include such a @file{guix.scm} file
>>
>> Fine with me, but what=E2=80=99s the rationale?  I think we need Dave=E2=
=80=99s approval
>> on this crucial part.  :-)
>
> I approve!
>
> For background, I used to use 'package.scm' files, but jao from the
> Geiser project suggested 'guix.scm' for better clarity considering
> that there are other Scheme-only packaging systems out there and it
> might be confusing.  I thought it was a fine idea so I've switched to
> using 'guix.scm' everywhere.  I think it's a good convention to
> recommend.

Makes sense to me.  I=E2=80=99ve applied the patch, thank you!

Ludo=E2=80=99.