New CLI syntax for package version

New CLI syntax for package version

[Ludovic Courtès]

In <http://bugs.gnu.org/19219>, 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, ‘guile-1.8’ 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, <http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=19219#25>

     guile:1.8/doc
     xterm-256-color:320
     emacs:24.5/out

  2. underscore, <http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=19219#28>

     emacs_24.5:out

  3. at, <http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=19219#31>

     guile@1.8
     guile@1.8:doc

What do people think?

Ludo’.

Re: New CLI syntax for package version

[Federico Beffa]

ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:

> In <http://bugs.gnu.org/19219>, 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, ‘guile-1.8’ 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, <http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=19219#25>
>
>      guile:1.8/doc
>      xterm-256-color:320
>      emacs:24.5/out
>
>   2. underscore, <http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=19219#28>
>
>      emacs_24.5:out
>
>   3. at, <http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=19219#31>
>
>      guile@1.8
>      guile@1.8:doc
>
> What do people think?

My order of preference (highest preference first) is: 3., 1., 2.

Regards,
Fede

Re: New CLI syntax for package version

[Andreas Enge]

On Sat, Jan 09, 2016 at 10:26:22PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>   2. underscore, <http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=19219#28>
>      emacs_24.5:out

I do not like this one, as the "_" is not sufficiently "separating" - it
looks too much like "-", which can be part of a package name. The other
two would work well.

Andreas

Re: New CLI syntax for package version

[Ben Woodcroft]

On 10/01/16 08:40, Federico Beffa wrote:
> ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>
>> In <http://bugs.gnu.org/19219>, 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, ‘guile-1.8’ 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, <http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=19219#25>
>>
>>       guile:1.8/doc
>>       xterm-256-color:320
>>       emacs:24.5/out
>>
>>    2. underscore, <http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=19219#28>
>>
>>       emacs_24.5:out
>>
>>    3. at, <http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=19219#31>
>>
>>       guile@1.8
>>       guile@1.8:doc
>>
>> What do people think?
> My order of preference (highest preference first) is: 3., 1., 2.

Me too.
ben

Re: New CLI syntax for package version

[Ricardo Wurmus]

Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:

> In <http://bugs.gnu.org/19219>, 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, ‘guile-1.8’ 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, <http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=19219#25>
>
>      guile:1.8/doc
>      xterm-256-color:320
>      emacs:24.5/out

That’s really “colon”, rather than “slash”.  The slash is used to
separate the output, which reminds me of paths.

>   2. underscore, <http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=19219#28>
>
>      emacs_24.5:out

I do not like this one.

>   3. at, <http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=19219#31>
>
>      guile@1.8
>      guile@1.8:doc

I like the “@” because it reads as “guile at [version] 1.8”.  A colon to
separate the output name from the rest works just as well as a slash
(proposed above); I have no preference here.

~~ Ricardo

Re: New CLI syntax for package version

[Christopher Allan Webber]

Ricardo Wurmus writes:

>>   2. underscore, <http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=19219#28>
>>
>>      emacs_24.5:out
>
> I do not like this one.

Just joining in the chorus, the underscore one really bothers me.

The other options seem fine!

Re: New CLI syntax for package version

[Eric Bavier]

On 2016-01-10 21:37, Christopher Allan Webber wrote:
> Ricardo Wurmus writes:
> 
>>>   2. underscore, 
>>> <http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=19219#28>
>>> 
>>>      emacs_24.5:out
>> 
>> I do not like this one.
> 
> Just joining in the chorus, the underscore one really bothers me.
> 
> The other options seem fine!

Same here.

-- 
`~Eric

Re: New CLI syntax for package version

[shakmar]

Hi!

[…]

>>>    1. slash, <http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=3D19219#25>
>>>
>>>       guile:1.8/doc
>>>       xterm-256-color:320
>>>       emacs:24.5/out
>>>
>>>    2. underscore, <http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=3D1921=
>9#28>
>>>
>>>       emacs_24.5:out
>>>
>>>    3. at, <http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=3D19219#31>
>>>
>>>       guile@1.8
>>>       guile@1.8:doc
>>>
>>> What do people think?
>> My order of preference (highest preference first) is: 3., 1., 2.
>
> Me too.
> ben

The problem I see with 3. is that the mailing list archives will detect the
package names (with versions, ie the whole strings like ‘guile@1.8’) as email
addresses, and hide them, by replacing them with ‘address@hidden’.  As an
example, here’s the mail I replied to:

https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2016-01/msg00343.html

If it wasn’t for this problem, my order of preference would be 3-1-2 too.

Thanks for the effort, by the way. :)

Re: New CLI syntax for package version

[Ludovic Courtès]

shakmar@openmailbox.org skribis:

> The problem I see with 3. is that the mailing list archives will detect the
> package names (with versions, ie the whole strings like ‘guile@1.8’) as email
> addresses, and hide them, by replacing them with ‘address@hidden’.  As an
> example, here’s the mail I replied to:
>
> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2016-01/msg00343.html

True…  Gmane does something slightly less silly:

  http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnu.guix.devel/15058

Ludo’.

Re: New CLI syntax for package version

[Ricardo Wurmus]

Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:

> In <http://bugs.gnu.org/19219>, 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, ‘guile-1.8’ refers to version 1.8.x of
> Guile; however, this syntax has proved to be ambiguous for packages
> whose name contains digits.

Should we also take some time to reconsider how we name unreleased
versions like arbitrary git commits?

So far we have been picking the latest release version (or “0.0.0” if
there hasn’t been any release) followed by “.” and either a date or a
guix-internal revision number, then again a “.” followed by part of the
commit hash.

I’m afraid that we might accidentally introduce conflicts with future
release versions, e.g. when the latest release only uses two digits
(e.g. “0.1”) and we add a revision or a date (e.g. “0.1.1” or
“0.1.20160112”) and the next release and the next official release
switches to three digits (e.g. “0.1.1”).

Would it make sense to separate our version identifier from the actual
release version with a different character than “.”?  Or should this be
discussed elsewhere as it hasn’t anything to do with how we specify
versions on the command line?

~~ Ricardo