[PATCH] Suggest `guix.scm' for upstream maintainers.

[PATCH] Suggest `guix.scm' for upstream maintainers.

[Jan Nieuwenhuizen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 90 bytes --]

Hi,

In reference to ponderings on #guix, find minor doc patch attached.

Greetings,
Jan


[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #2: 0001-Suggest-guix.scm-for-upstream-maintainers.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-diff, Size: 929 bytes --]

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 definition 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
 in the root of their project source tree that can be used to test
 development snapshots and create reproducible development environments
 (@pxref{Invoking guix environment}).
-- 
2.6.3


[-- Attachment #3: Type: text/plain, Size: 154 bytes --]


-- 
Jan Nieuwenhuizen <janneke@gnu.org> | GNU LilyPond http://lilypond.org
Freelance IT http://JoyofSource.com | Avatar®  http://AvatarAcademy.nl  

Re: [PATCH] Suggest `guix.scm' for upstream maintainers.

[Ludovic Courtès]

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 definition 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’s the rationale?  I think we need Dave’s approval
on this crucial part.  :-)

Ludo’.

Re: [PATCH] Suggest `guix.scm' for upstream maintainers.

[Thompson, David]

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 11:03 AM, Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> wrote:
> 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 definition 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’s the rationale?  I think we need Dave’s 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.

- Dave

Re: [PATCH] Suggest `guix.scm' for upstream maintainers.

[Ludovic Courtès]

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

> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 11:03 AM, Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> wrote:
>> 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 definition 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’s the rationale?  I think we need Dave’s 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’ve applied the patch, thank you!

Ludo’.