From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christopher Baines Subject: How should ambiguous package specifications be handled? Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2020 08:03:34 +0000 Message-ID: <87k15ippk9.fsf@cbaines.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:49534) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iuXSo-0000Eh-5y for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 03:03:43 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iuXSn-00015a-3Y for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 03:03:42 -0500 Received: from mira.cbaines.net ([212.71.252.8]:55812) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iuXSm-00013x-U9 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 03:03:41 -0500 Received: from localhost (unknown [46.237.162.0]) by mira.cbaines.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6911C177CC for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 08:03:39 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost (localhost [local]) by localhost (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPA id e7dcc545 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 08:03:37 +0000 (UTC) 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: guix-devel@gnu.org --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Hey, I'm aware of duplicate packages as the Guix Data Service identifies cases where there are two package definitions with the same name and version [1]. We've had one for a while (itstool 2.0.6), and another has recently been introduced (sassc 3.6.1). Guix will tell you that something is up if you try and `guix build itstool`, or `guix lint itstool`, as itstool could refer to either package, as they both have the same version. While the longer term fix for both these cases is to get rid of the duplication once the issues that motivated the change are fixed, I wanted to check what should and could be done about this general issue before then. Looking at the itstool case, there are similar duplicate packages for yelp-tools (yelp-tools/fixed) and python-libxml2 (python-libxml2/fixed), however building and linting them doesn't reveal any warnings. In the yelp-tools/fixed case, the package is declared as hidden, and for python-libxml2/fixed, the version is tweaked. I guess the hidden approach is preferable if it's not expected that anyone will want to explicitly install the package, and the version change approach works better if you do want people to be able to install the package. 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)? Thanks, Chris 1: search for "warning: ignoring duplicate package:" http://data.guix.gnu.org/job/14282 --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQKTBAEBCgB9FiEEPonu50WOcg2XVOCyXiijOwuE9XcFAl4pU1ZfFIAAAAAALgAo aXNzdWVyLWZwckBub3RhdGlvbnMub3BlbnBncC5maWZ0aGhvcnNlbWFuLm5ldDNF ODlFRUU3NDU4RTcyMEQ5NzU0RTBCMjVFMjhBMzNCMEI4NEY1NzcACgkQXiijOwuE 9XcaiBAArjJoFr7k57L1HsDtzEIGTDp8tpMwHGA6QUkqmpnfQprtDsduHXmiZhwA RSYSuIcXnhlseThXJ3vD/OeiKhnU6u0ihbxcE7RVxtsX6HyP1BEwadoy3M1RI05q ywP8QKLyORaUTBhpMQwbbZ0r75+O5BJdULeNBXcK5w+Q4m4a/HasbGbci1zFgkjs U3ICBDjYiu28fJvNeonZ0oWFKQ3N6WHOx45GfYUNWna0riQ2LnTQqnwHPBj5yDJF bQfYAse0IfWsEnTasFXxDe+etTvtNVNNwJyyZgLpO9QRt4jGHw4sE928MiCr7e1z 6LcOB1NqRg+M0SjdyUICw+6Lu/c1Gi39gWxbQ5KjIdJibkjPdVltmMSHOPDnw7F0 eAlovIICoZh0yIYJ1oJ0/IqqvVQ5eHG7YKgXO+r8kj1ExjtHxb88UxFEDh6wsOHI eiRr5hw+me3vfd/6KKVaZUGofq0dxAb01mtA3+Xv1O0OimCRmRWIC7913NSi5aYE NdWthYh8e5Yu4bOBtkRLy3CaC3tahxD2OIsQuGOyzHQhIZdJFR/Tvoa63+fSAaeb c9hl4c2gPkKC5JVxLLsc1IDPWBqR9w3JwfhW66oJ59IY+J43vA9+VGwm0a7QTWGW UQLSrVuc5YhBKI0hK3KjiwrmXvq7X9q7AEyMKvCQcaZe5KMwjp0= =Lfvn -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--