From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Leo Famulari Subject: bug#19219: New command-line syntax for package + version? Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2016 16:45:18 -0500 Message-ID: <20160101214518.GA12106@jasmine> References: <87si3ah1d1.fsf@gnu.org> <87h9jblks4.fsf@gnu.org> <87k2o7h3ux.fsf@gnu.org> <8737uu9pro.fsf@gnu.org> <87oad8vxkx.fsf_-_@gnu.org> <87io3fo8sl.fsf@gnu.org> <20151231011631.GB23122@jasmine> <20151231100934.231cee5b@debian-netbook> <87k2nti9ab.fsf@gnu.org> <20160101212540.GC11284@jasmine> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:36310) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aF9f1-0008I9-My for bug-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 01 Jan 2016 19:03:08 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aF9ew-0003MT-LN for bug-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 01 Jan 2016 19:03:07 -0500 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:45720) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aF9ew-0003MD-2X for bug-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 01 Jan 2016 19:03:02 -0500 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1aF9ev-0000VZ-SD for bug-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 01 Jan 2016 19:03:01 -0500 Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-Message-ID: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160101212540.GC11284@jasmine> List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: 19219@debbugs.gnu.org, Mathieu Lirzin On Fri, Jan 01, 2016 at 04:25:40PM -0500, Leo Famulari wrote: > On Fri, Jan 01, 2016 at 04:55:40PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > > Efraim Flashner skribis: > > > > > On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 20:16:31 -0500 > > > Leo Famulari wrote: > > > > > >> On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 11:45:14PM +0100, Mathieu Lirzin wrote: > > >> [...] > > >> [...] > > >> [...] > > >> [...] > > >> [...] > > >> [...] > > >> > > > >> > I'm OK with that. Since choosing the reserved characters is not a > > >> > technical decision, maybe we could poll users? > > >> > > >> I think we should poll a big list of packages and see which characters > > >> are most safe to use. > > >> > > >> The question is: which big list? Debian's? > > >> > > >> > > > > > > When debian adopted multiarch > > > > [...] > > > > I forgot to reply to Leo’s message, but it seems clear to me that it > > only makes sense to discuss on Guix mailing lists. I don’t think anyone > > else cares about the syntax of Guix’s command-line interface. ;-) > > I don't mean that we should discuss it on Debian's mailing list. I mean > that we should consult the largest list of packages that we can find in > order to learn which characters are safest to choose as reserved. Debian > has a very long list of packages. Of course, Debian has to choose how to name their packages, so the list provided by `apt-cache pkgnames` is not the same as the list of upstream names. But it does give some idea of what is possible once everything is packaged. I did this: $ apt-cache pkgnames | tr -d 'a-zA-Z0-9' | tr -d - | tr -d '\n' The only remaining characters were '.' and '+'. So it could be possible to reserve : and @ without causing too many problems. > > > > > Ludo’.