[bug#48237] [PATCH] gnu: emacs-consult: Add ‘emacs-ve

[Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler@gmail.com>]

Am Montag, den 06.09.2021, 13:51 -0400 schrieb Maxim Cournoyer:
> Hello Arun,
> 
> Xinglu Chen <public@yoctocell.xyz> writes:
> 
> > On Wed, Aug 11 2021, Arun Isaac wrote:
> > 
> > > Hi all,
> > > 
> > > I actually think we should not add emacs-vertico to the
> > > propagated-inputs, and remove emacs-flycheck and emacs-selectrum
> > > as well. All these are optional dependencies, and we should leave
> > > it to the user to install the ones they want. At least in this
> > > specific case, the three packages (flycheck, selectrum and
> > > vertico) are the kind the user would want to explicitly install.
> > > They aren't backend libraries that ought to remain invisible to
> > > the user.
> > > 
> > > In fact, this is the version of emacs-consult I have installed in
> > > my profile.
> 
> Guix packages typically come as featureful as possible unless there
> are good reasons not too (to minimize the closure size, for
> example).  In this case, the added optional dependencies seem to have
> negligible effect on the closure size, according to `guix size`; I'd
> be in favor to keep the optional dependencies specified for that
> reason, unless there are other considerations that I'm missing.
While closure size is normally a good metric, with interpreted
languages like Emacs Lisp you have the added baggage of *propagating*
inputs, thereby installing stuff at user (or system) level, that the
user did not actually ask for.  My personal take on those is to provide
them as inputs where necessary to compile, but not actually propagate
them where not necessary to run.

For example, an Emacs package might require emacs-dash to function at
all and might install some autocompletion stuff with emacs-autocomplete 
or emacs-company (perhaps even both).  emacs-dash absolutely must be
propagated, but unless you're already using autocomplete or company and
thus have them in your manifest, you probably don't want them to be
installed by emacs-foo.  Does this make sense?