From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Thompson, David" Subject: Re: [PATCH] ui: 'package->recutils' serializes the source field. Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2016 10:25:22 -0400 Message-ID: References: <87eg60g79l.fsf@gnu.org> <87a8gog154.fsf@gnu.org> <87vazcce0a.fsf@gnu.org> <87r39zcfkz.fsf@gnu.org> <871t1zoz98.fsf@gmail.com> <87invbc6hn.fsf@gnu.org> <87ziombyrx.fsf@gnu.org> <87popglv3u.fsf@gnu.org> <87lh04ltg2.fsf@gnu.org> <32ade0cc-b971-a3fa-ea92-9b313955a373@uq.edu.au> <4e35f009-ba71-f430-65e6-e986365b0c77@uq.edu.au> <87twesd9jw.fsf@elephly.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:55224) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bXURj-0007Gc-A1 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 10 Aug 2016 10:25:28 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bXURg-0006FS-T7 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 10 Aug 2016 10:25:26 -0400 Received: from mail-ua0-x22c.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400c:c08::22c]:32816) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bXURg-0006F7-Me for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 10 Aug 2016 10:25:24 -0400 Received: by mail-ua0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id 74so72456706uau.0 for ; Wed, 10 Aug 2016 07:25:23 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87twesd9jw.fsf@elephly.net> 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.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Ricardo Wurmus Cc: guix-devel , Alex Kost , David Craven On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 9:42 AM, Ricardo Wurmus wrote: > > Ben Woodcroft writes: > >> On 10/08/16 22:27, David Craven wrote: >>>> I don't have anything to to contribute beyond psuedo-quoting Ludo: let= 's not lose our hair over this! >>> I'll let the fact that that could interpreted as being insulting slide. >>> >> >> Oh, no that wasn't my intended meaning. I just saw this thread getting a >> bit heated in general and I wanted to help it in the reverse direction, >> for all concerned. That's all. > > I agree, let=E2=80=99s cool it a bit please. > > Aside from the possible FDSG issue (which I need to think about before > forming an opinion, although I=E2=80=99m leaning towards not seeing it as= a > problem), I=E2=80=99m not yet convinced that all fields need to be printe= d in > recutils format. > > For programmatic access to packages we recommend using the Scheme values > directly as they also hold additional information about the location of > a value in the dependency graph (package expressions are code, not plain > meta-data). I always understood the recutils output to be just a user > interface for the command line, which is why it doesn=E2=80=99t need to a= nd > probably shouldn=E2=80=99t print *all* fields. > > I think it is not desirable to show that much more information in the > output, because it is not a programming interface but primarily a user > interface. > > Even so, if one insisted on using the recutils output in a programmatic > fashion (e.g. in a bash script), it would be best to run =E2=80=9Cguix bu= ild > --source=E2=80=9D on the package names to obtain the actual source tarbal= ls that > are used by Guix. What would be the point of printing a URL that is not > necessarily used by Guix directly? =E2=80=9Cguix build --source=E2=80=9D= (which can be > used in bash scripts) already provides the *actual* tarball (patched and > with snippets applied), so this would be more meaningful than an > upstream URL, in my opinion. > > What do others think? +1 - Dave