From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp0 ([2001:41d0:2:bcc0::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms0.migadu.com with LMTPS id SAnJEg8FMWEDeQAAgWs5BA (envelope-from ) for ; Thu, 02 Sep 2021 19:08:31 +0200 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:bcc0::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp0 with LMTPS id CPV2Dg8FMWEVBAAA1q6Kng (envelope-from ) for ; Thu, 02 Sep 2021 17:08:31 +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 14011A457 for ; Thu, 2 Sep 2021 19:08:31 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost ([::1]:51398 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mLqCU-0001L4-2A for larch@yhetil.org; Thu, 02 Sep 2021 13:08:30 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:55078) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mLqCC-0001IY-Lo for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 02 Sep 2021 13:08:12 -0400 Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.29]:43893) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mLqCA-0006wT-Om for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 02 Sep 2021 13:08:12 -0400 Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7432C5C0081; Thu, 2 Sep 2021 13:08:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 02 Sep 2021 13:08:08 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=famulari.name; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:in-reply-to; s=mesmtp; bh=1E1VGcfUZHrkv3aI2nd6YylZ p4rY5IVlaOG2p5Mhi7k=; b=CCgyHhV7Hh7LuLpuQLjiroaPF2yCvBcPHwXGk91x Ca9sYmjC2VBOySoD5XUpnVFLM/L+xx4NJeVdEp85O66wFeo7K994+mHvF+RGB2Xg 875AhrAiOrtqJWZGWJOOVzOjrKkUbn96OSKeYukUCXNi7cvIwXKfedUroQt1VICP ZWA= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=1E1VGc fUZHrkv3aI2nd6YylZp4rY5IVlaOG2p5Mhi7k=; b=hhltYgzV35UvKHddbjcsMj 0xV7TatD5u7I0aT2KcEpySyZKSdC1+n1nleKrZ+Wa6RqXHFzakny2mWOlaUkShG7 WxgGikekJIQkFEJya72eUTVyaM4SZda2Caa1xpwxiYOIIt4sLdko6WZH/nrJIdfr wWgcQKGNLaD0+dqnNDCOV4Wq9TFJXcFbxDYsL0/X+2Wooi3fZvJQLp+yuZpD4QYR M7P3dg8dLVyP/pt2IzLioKCgUfFXqu65w3yeBSE5/baSo+z/QV3GFsOH7oxbzcDq fZVBei7NP24eyt17OUgPqdnH6cd8Urrv3sglvm3Lkloky/1YuKqznljT5uNeArow == X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvtddruddvhedguddtlecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhepfffhvffukfhfgggtuggjsehttd ertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefnvghoucfhrghmuhhlrghrihcuoehlvghosehfrghmuhhl rghrihdrnhgrmhgvqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpedvvddugefffeeitddthfefvdeuhf fgkeeikeegkeevteeghfeftefggeeuudffieenucffohhmrghinhepghhnuhdrohhrghen ucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehlvghose hfrghmuhhlrghrihdrnhgrmhgv X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Thu, 2 Sep 2021 13:08:07 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2021 13:08:06 -0400 From: Leo Famulari To: Sarah Morgensen Subject: Re: Can we find a better idiom for unversioned packages? Message-ID: References: <8635qp1j6k.fsf@mgsn.dev> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8635qp1j6k.fsf@mgsn.dev> Received-SPF: pass client-ip=66.111.4.29; envelope-from=leo@famulari.name; helo=out5-smtp.messagingengine.com X-Spam_score_int: -27 X-Spam_score: -2.8 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.8 / 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no 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: , Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_IN X-Migadu-Spam-Score: -4.00 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; none X-Migadu-Queue-Id: 14011A457 X-Spam-Score: -4.00 X-Migadu-Scanner: scn1.migadu.com X-TUID: DXxwxbwRlgfj On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 12:57:23PM -0700, Sarah Morgensen wrote: > I do not have a specific solution in mind, but I think there must be > one. I do have a few half-baked ideas, but I'm curious what we can all > come up with together. Or maybe you'll just tell me I'm just being > awfully picky :) Thanks for starting this discussion. In order to avoid repeating / rediscovering the reasons why the current idiom was chosen, I recommend reading the discussion that led to it: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2016-01/msg00335.html