From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ben Woodcroft Subject: Re: New CLI syntax for package version Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2016 11:06:53 +1000 Message-ID: <5691AEAD.4080906@uq.edu.au> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59904) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aI4TM-0007uw-11 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Jan 2016 20:07:08 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aI4TH-00022W-1i for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Jan 2016 20:07:07 -0500 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-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Federico Beffa , ludo@gnu.org, Guix-devel On 10/01/16 08:40, Federico Beffa wrote: > ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) writes: > >> In , 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, =E2=80=98guile-1.8=E2=80=99 refers to vers= ion 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, >> >> guile:1.8/doc >> xterm-256-color:320 >> emacs:24.5/out >> >> 2. underscore, >> >> emacs_24.5:out >> >> 3. at, >> >> 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