From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp0 ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms11 with LMTPS id 0AzKNervt14nUgAA0tVLHw (envelope-from ) for ; Sun, 10 May 2020 12:13:30 +0000 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp0 with LMTPS id 0P8RGfjvt16THgAA1q6Kng (envelope-from ) for ; Sun, 10 May 2020 12:13:44 +0000 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3A5E59400CB for ; Sun, 10 May 2020 12:13:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:52000 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jXkpz-0001y1-1Y for larch@yhetil.org; Sun, 10 May 2020 08:13:43 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:59250) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jXkpq-0001w2-Kn for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 10 May 2020 08:13:34 -0400 Received: from lepiller.eu ([2a00:5884:8208::1]:42776) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jXkpp-0004FN-1q for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 10 May 2020 08:13:34 -0400 Received: from lepiller.eu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lepiller.eu (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id fe2a759c; Sun, 10 May 2020 12:13:27 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=lepiller.eu; h=date :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:subject:to:from:message-id; s=dkim; bh=XAsmMx7AEniy58mg0TDGoz1twbyj7aB4Tznwl4KyLP0=; b=fnImFVEYqxo/ J4XY2LVqWgReJtfn4SWrZBPPDw64xRbKlRT3m+kWJKxSpsJc89BoRgGoBFCCwIuB IvOdsCh0xPcecktS2C+gBvsKb+aofx8Y/kZEQ3Ne6i8CLKm4icP044Hcgc8JSv41 C1Z1/0d9tcvPmXn9iJEt+4ocmUVMkL2d8eJiT/ago1H/GckbDU/GvicsDY1aMIzf iuQq1xPAJrKZv+HQy5Lv0LGxOPHiRWqN4qCbYSdu4FEHrJhJ8aSn3yvrMZgSw1cc Oyzdc4x0ztinCvpuQikU7TOuHIyY6lo64ePUKZNGIiv5PRsu3x+OAnN9PzwuqZqh 42tOtxWRdg== Received: by lepiller.eu (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPSA id 10fdaaf1 (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256:NO); Sun, 10 May 2020 12:13:26 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sun, 10 May 2020 08:13:14 -0400 User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: Should guix track package aliases? To: guix-devel@gnu.org, zimoun , Josh Marshall From: Julien Lepiller Message-ID: Received-SPF: none client-ip=2a00:5884:8208::1; envelope-from=julien@lepiller.eu; helo=lepiller.eu X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: No matching host in p0f cache. That's all we know. X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001 autolearn=_AUTOLEARN X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: guix-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list 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+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" X-Scanner: scn0 X-Spam-Score: 1.09 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=fail (rsa verify failed) header.d=lepiller.eu header.s=dkim header.b=fnImFVEY; dmarc=fail reason="SPF not aligned (relaxed)" header.from=lepiller.eu (policy=none); spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org X-Scan-Result: default: False [1.09 / 13.00]; GENERIC_REPUTATION(0.00)[-0.53891823430933]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip4:209.51.188.0/24:c]; R_DKIM_REJECT(1.00)[lepiller.eu:s=dkim]; DWL_DNSWL_FAIL(0.00)[209.51.188.17:server fail]; IP_REPUTATION_HAM(0.00)[asn: 22989(0.08), country: US(-0.00), ip: 209.51.188.17(-0.54)]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[lepiller.eu:-]; MX_GOOD(-0.50)[cached: eggs.gnu.org]; MAILLIST(-0.20)[mailman]; FREEMAIL_TO(0.00)[gnu.org,gmail.com]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_FAIL(0.00)[209.51.188.17:server fail]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; SUBJECT_ENDS_QUESTION(1.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:22989, ipnet:209.51.188.0/24, country:US]; TAGGED_FROM(0.00)[larch=yhetil.org]; FROM_NEQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[julien@lepiller.eu,guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_FIVE(0.00)[5]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; FORGED_RECIPIENTS_MAILLIST(0.00)[]; TAGGED_RCPT(0.00)[]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; HAS_LIST_UNSUB(-0.01)[]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; RWL_MAILSPIKE_POSSIBLE(0.00)[209.51.188.17:from]; FORGED_SENDER_MAILLIST(0.00)[]; DMARC_POLICY_SOFTFAIL(0.10)[lepiller.eu : SPF not aligned (relaxed),none] X-TUID: QAKyvTPjWfGv Le 10 mai 2020 05:57:22 GMT-04:00, zimoun a = =C3=A9crit : >Dear, > >On Sat, 9 May 2020 at 22:19, Josh Marshall > wrote: > >> [=2E=2E=2E] naming conventions between the source project, [=2E=2E=2E] = , and guix >itself have some drift=2E > >Some packages already track upstream name: see the field '(proprieties >(upstream-name =2E "foo"))', e=2Eg=2E, the package "r-flowsom", > >> The approach which I think makes the most sense is to add an optional >but encouraged field in package definitions which takes a list of >alternative package names=2E When using `guix search` this field could >also be evaluated, and when `guix package -i` is invoked and the target >does not exist, these aliases could be searched through for similar >names to the non-existing target and suggest the actual package they >might have intended=2E > >Well, the 'proprieties' field is not used by 'package->recutils' which >is the function used by "guix show" (and "guix search")=2E I do not >have an option if an extra field "upstream-name" should be added or >not=2E > >However, from my point of view, "Explicit is better than implicit=2E" as >said any good Zen=2E ;-) >So, I appears to me a bad idea to implicitly install 'bar' when I type >"guix package -i foo" because 'bar' is an alternative name I am not >aware of=2E The proposal was about suggesting anotger nameqwhen no package was found, = not to install something else=2E > >IMHO, the fix is to improve the synposis and the description to be >able to reach the expected package=2E If the description is >well-written, then "guix search bar" should return the package "foo"=2E > > >Well, do you have specific example in mind? > $ guix install gcc guix install: error: gcc: unknown package Hint: did you mean `guix install gcc-toolchain`? Since not being able to install gcc is surprising, and you don't always kn= ow about gcc-toolchain=2E $ guix install gpg Hint: did you mean `guix install gnupg`? Often a name is used to refer to a package, and it's annoying to go throug= h a search, especially when you have to filter a big output=2E I'd use the search when I don't have a specific package in mind=2E For ins= tance, looking for a font or a game: guix search roguelike "Give me a list of roguelike games" guix search font japanese "Give me a list of fonts I can use to see Japanese texts" If I have to do "guix search gpg" I really mean "give me the package named= gpg but you stupid guix devs in your infinite wisdom have decided to use a= nother name" ;) The first use-case is good, the second one is frustrating, don't you think= ? > >All the best, >simon