From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Federico Beffa Subject: Re: New CLI syntax for package version Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2016 23:40:21 +0100 Message-ID: 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]:53472) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aI2BL-0007h4-1C for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Jan 2016 17:40:23 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aI2BJ-0006gM-TW for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Jan 2016 17:40:22 -0500 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-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: ludo@gnu.org, Guix-devel ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) writes: > In , we came to the conclusion that we need a > new syntax to denote a specific package version on the command line. > > The current syntax is described in the manual (info "(guix) Invoking > guix package"). Basically, =E2=80=98guile-1.8=E2=80=99 refers to version= 1.8.x of > Guile; however, this syntax has proved to be ambiguous for packages > whose name contains digits. > > For the new syntax, the proposals so far are: > > 1. slash, > > guile:1.8/doc > xterm-256-color:320 > emacs:24.5/out > > 2. underscore, > > emacs_24.5:out > > 3. at, > > guile@1.8 > guile@1.8:doc > > What do people think? My order of preference (highest preference first) is: 3., 1., 2. Regards, Fede