From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Leo Famulari Subject: Re: Proposal: Prefix language-name for language library packages Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2016 19:36:32 -0400 Message-ID: <20160429233632.GA13525@jasmine> References: 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]:56083) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1awHxx-0005NR-OJ for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 29 Apr 2016 19:37:04 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1awHxl-00062Y-Vb for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 29 Apr 2016 19:36:52 -0400 Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.29]:53114) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1awHxi-0005tE-JT for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 29 Apr 2016 19:36:45 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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" To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?al=EDrio?= eyng Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 06:31:24PM +0000, alírio eyng wrote: > Ludovic Courtès: > >what about multiple-language packages? I’m thinking of > >‘c+guile-guile’ and ‘c+siod+python-gimp’. > the ideal categorization would be one output for each interface. > so "guile" (scheme), "guile:c", "gimp" (gui), "gimp:c", "gimp:siod", > "gimp:python", "emacs" (gui), "emacs:tui", "emacs:elisp" (to run > "emacs -batch -eval"). > e.g. guile:c and emacs:tui are pretty useless for me, so i could not > install them. > it's worth to focus on packages already split: "emacs" (gui+tui+elisp) > and "emacs:no-gui" (tui+elisp), linux-libre, ... I don't think we should split packages up unless there is a pressing reason to do it. For example, some our packages have a rarely-used component that uses a lot of disk space or has a very large dependency. It makes sense to put those in different outputs. But if we go too far, nobody will be able to tell which package to install to accomplish their task. > c nomenclature: > packages with c interface currently have nothing, "lib" (prefix or > postfix), "c-", "-c", "4c" or "-headers". > e.g. "readline" "libunistring" "htslib" "c-ares" "json-c" "icu4c" > "mesa-headers" "linux-libre-headers". > and lots of synopses with nothing, "C library for", "C library > providing", "C library to", "implementation in C" or "written in C". Again, unless some package's headers take up a large amount of disk space, or have some other onerous cost, I don't see a reason to put them in a separate output.