From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp2 ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms11 with LMTPS id ULHTBykQt17qVwAA0tVLHw (envelope-from ) for ; Sat, 09 May 2020 20:18:49 +0000 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp2 with LMTPS id gHr1FDYQt16oGAAAB5/wlQ (envelope-from ) for ; Sat, 09 May 2020 20:19:02 +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 4E5F29400BF for ; Sat, 9 May 2020 20:19:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:50114 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jXVw5-0007Dq-17 for larch@yhetil.org; Sat, 09 May 2020 16:19:01 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:55206) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jXVvw-0007DU-U1 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 09 May 2020 16:18:52 -0400 Received: from mail-ua1-x932.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::932]:38600) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jXVvv-0002k5-R7 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 09 May 2020 16:18:52 -0400 Received: by mail-ua1-x932.google.com with SMTP id g15so609627uah.5 for ; Sat, 09 May 2020 13:18:51 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=4+A6Svi60EHcJ3Eux5Rg5h7/UiQKaJXgWYxLInlPqbM=; b=tRlhg+3F3rh6etIU8ExS3Z4IpogvGp1ebiJcMTY9ife+ywHkl1D1L13C6IS/8XOhL8 IlJ7Q3VxhEeLt0sfQWe7VD4OnfIcaeJ1IdKJpUd91ATlv/RBGBt+UXmb/p9vhmJvyQc4 Fhf0K3muvtSWhkT0XoUBBC8BlFr0zV7xJ0TI/Ej86ZzMEuMeIXOaNw82oaSDmc3n/AC2 xdiHT7mgrU1EqsdZmtJTMYzs2+/oSVWO1wJhQC8aZOkqob05E0cMi8yyOeknULHXSDti dkdqX5BajiZAURnTXj2s6B7KUe0vf0gBHMMW9i7bFrdTYWqltRLD9JvcX4nZ2S8C7StK K2Mg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=4+A6Svi60EHcJ3Eux5Rg5h7/UiQKaJXgWYxLInlPqbM=; b=aZI7aeU/aAeCYXZnzw22WKciV3UkS/N2jlrYQvVh8clZ3duRh4JgxhajBpjomEXBri vDhFT0DYr55IHO5NH/vZBEQ3L0/eBXeCA9yNbY4bI2z74SaudPiE9BkK0PcfyZcJhBQR nZ+NmXlhJBML2Fs9nsoQbc8Yv6BFpHR51zKI8THCrLhCthLZ6agPFuyE3wIhkexHTLgt z5j/gFbUa3/n92RThMefhxyH//8HyG4rzvUtBy11WkqL6hmLGVStbNDynmX/Y2QNe1eM +4TliJZIj3JCmEcWqKAQuiOchRDyFE5D+y1+uYPyLbdUvaafSQLKM3AjSv1gzBuRYHib fclA== X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PubmDelgil22tV28+mecUx0BWIFGCovzUCzcM9+KY8TcCvWnbSlH aw/InGN82THeciTmBdE0ZWX9cucexcpXw/TLHrgZyowv X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypL1UDshqzqjxG349bjZQVRxBSc7C0A73OxH0lSIfWWRoUWR7n+xTsvfX0oZalLVfC29Rs+87/D+5DXb6H/aBgw= X-Received: by 2002:ab0:72cb:: with SMTP id g11mr6607135uap.65.1589055530257; Sat, 09 May 2020 13:18:50 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Josh Marshall Date: Sat, 9 May 2020 16:18:39 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Should guix track package aliases? To: guix-devel Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000068d0d605a53cd237" Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::932; envelope-from=joshua.r.marshall.1991@gmail.com; helo=mail-ua1-x932.google.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: No matching host in p0f cache. That's all we know. X-Spam_score_int: -17 X-Spam_score: -1.8 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.8 / 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, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-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: 0.79 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=pass header.d=gmail.com header.s=20161025 header.b=tRlhg+3F; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=gmail.com; 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 [0.79 / 13.00]; GENERIC_REPUTATION(0.00)[-0.54002520973443]; MX_INVALID(1.00)[cached]; DWL_DNSWL_FAIL(0.00)[gmail.com:server fail,209.51.188.17:server fail]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip4:209.51.188.0/24:c]; FREEMAIL_FROM(0.00)[gmail.com]; IP_REPUTATION_HAM(0.00)[asn: 22989(0.09), country: US(-0.00), ip: 209.51.188.17(-0.54)]; TO_DN_ALL(0.00)[]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[gmail.com:+]; DMARC_POLICY_ALLOW(-0.50)[gmail.com,none]; MAILLIST(-0.20)[mailman]; FORGED_RECIPIENTS_MAILLIST(0.00)[]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_FAIL(0.00)[209.51.188.17:server fail]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+,1:+,2:~]; ASN(0.00)[asn:22989, ipnet:209.51.188.0/24, country:US]; SUBJECT_ENDS_QUESTION(1.00)[]; TAGGED_FROM(0.00)[larch=yhetil.org]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[gmail.com:s=20161025]; RCVD_COUNT_FIVE(0.00)[5]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; FROM_NEQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[joshuarmarshall1991@gmail.com,guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[multipart/alternative,text/plain]; PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00)[guix-devel@gnu.org]; HAS_LIST_UNSUB(-0.01)[]; RCPT_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]; RWL_MAILSPIKE_POSSIBLE(0.00)[209.51.188.17:from]; FORGED_SENDER_MAILLIST(0.00)[] X-TUID: pTvq7ssAe4gG --00000000000068d0d605a53cd237 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" I'm starting to collect software that needs packaging, and one thing I'm running into is that naming conventions between the source project, various distros, and guix itself have some drift. Something which seems low effort but would ease translating between various nomenclatures would be to track package aliases. These would be non-canonical in guix, but like shells sometimes making suggestions as to what program you might have intended to type would make life easier. 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. 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. This appears that it could be low effort, not interfere with any commands, not really change the interface, and make life easier. Anybody have any thoughts as to whether this would be a good idea or not? --00000000000068d0d605a53cd237 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I'm starting to collect software that needs packa= ging, and one thing I'm running into is that naming conventions between= the source project, various distros, and guix itself have some drift.=C2= =A0 Something which seems low effort but would ease translating between var= ious nomenclatures would be to track package aliases.=C2=A0 These would be = non-canonical in guix, but like shells sometimes making suggestions as to w= hat program you might have intended to type would make life easier.

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.=C2=A0 When using `guix search` this field co= uld 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 i= ntended.

This appears that it could be low effort,= not interfere with any commands, not really change the interface, and make= life easier.=C2=A0 Anybody have any thoughts as to whether this would be a= good idea or not?
--00000000000068d0d605a53cd237--