From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:47152)
 by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1)
 (envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1jBxV9-0005dq-TU
 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 05:18:08 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
 (envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1jBxV5-00032M-2b
 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 05:18:07 -0400
Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:47660)
 by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16)
 (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>)
 id 1jBxV4-0002zu-7p
 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 05:18:03 -0400
Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2)
 (envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1jBxV4-00056V-4W
 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 05:18:02 -0400
Subject: [bug#39309] [PATCH WIP] gnu: add stack.
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.39309.B39309.158391824619575@debbugs.gnu.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: John Soo <jsoo1@asu.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2020 02:17:15 -0700
Message-Id: <2FD91328-10FF-41C7-AFDF-E14F66916116@asu.edu>
References: <87mu9ahbz8.fsf@ngyro.com>
In-Reply-To: <87mu9ahbz8.fsf@ngyro.com>
List-Id: <guix-patches.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-patches>,
 <mailto:guix-patches-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-patches>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-patches@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-patches-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-patches>,
 <mailto:guix-patches-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org
Sender: "Guix-patches" <guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org>
To: Timothy Sample <samplet@ngyro.com>
Cc: 39309@debbugs.gnu.org

Hi Tim,

Sorry for my delay.  I think I=E2=80=99m finally starting to understand your=
 patch.


> I=E2=80=99m now wondering why Guix=E2=80=99s treatment of =E2=80=9CLIBRARY=
_PATH=E2=80=9D is not just
> solving this outright without the need for those flags.  Before I consider=
 pushing the patch, I=E2=80=99m going to answer that question.=20
> Ideally, Guix could do more of what it=E2=80=99s good at: understanding th=
e complete
> package graph.  :)

Yeah it would be nice if it were automatically tracked or if the env vars we=
re respected.

I like the idea of offering more cabal file semantics to package authors. In=
 that regards I have no issues with your patches.  My only thought is we sho=
uld make the flags lists instead of booleans. Not only would lists match the=
 cabal file specification, but I think having the extra detail would be a ni=
ce way to verify against existing cabal files. I can=E2=80=99t imagine just y=
et how but I could see wanting to be able to specify which paths were being u=
sed and their order.

I am not opposed to the names of the fields either, I like that they match t=
he cabal fields.

Thanks again!

John=