* Re: New CLI syntax for package version
@ 2016-01-09 22:40 Federico Beffa
2016-01-10 1:06 ` Ben Woodcroft
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Federico Beffa @ 2016-01-09 22:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ludo, Guix-devel
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: New CLI syntax for package version
2016-01-09 22:40 New CLI syntax for package version Federico Beffa
@ 2016-01-10 1:06 ` Ben Woodcroft
2016-01-11 16:01 ` shakmar
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Ben Woodcroft @ 2016-01-10 1:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Federico Beffa, ludo, Guix-devel
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: New CLI syntax for package version
2016-01-10 1:06 ` Ben Woodcroft
@ 2016-01-11 16:01 ` shakmar
2016-01-11 20:51 ` Ludovic Courtès
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: shakmar @ 2016-01-11 16:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: guix-devel
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. :)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* New CLI syntax for package version
@ 2016-01-09 21:26 Ludovic Courtès
2016-01-09 22:52 ` Andreas Enge
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Ludovic Courtès @ 2016-01-09 21:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: guix-devel
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’.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: New CLI syntax for package version
2016-01-09 21:26 Ludovic Courtès
@ 2016-01-09 22:52 ` Andreas Enge
2016-01-10 8:32 ` Ricardo Wurmus
2016-01-12 7:50 ` Ricardo Wurmus
2 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Andreas Enge @ 2016-01-09 22:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ludovic Courtès; +Cc: guix-devel
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: New CLI syntax for package version
2016-01-09 21:26 Ludovic Courtès
2016-01-09 22:52 ` Andreas Enge
@ 2016-01-10 8:32 ` Ricardo Wurmus
2016-01-11 3:37 ` Christopher Allan Webber
2016-01-12 7:50 ` Ricardo Wurmus
2 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Ricardo Wurmus @ 2016-01-10 8:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ludovic Courtès; +Cc: guix-devel
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: New CLI syntax for package version
2016-01-09 21:26 Ludovic Courtès
2016-01-09 22:52 ` Andreas Enge
2016-01-10 8:32 ` Ricardo Wurmus
@ 2016-01-12 7:50 ` Ricardo Wurmus
2 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Ricardo Wurmus @ 2016-01-12 7:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ludovic Courtès; +Cc: guix-devel
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2016-01-12 7:50 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2016-01-09 22:40 New CLI syntax for package version Federico Beffa
2016-01-10 1:06 ` Ben Woodcroft
2016-01-11 16:01 ` shakmar
2016-01-11 20:51 ` Ludovic Courtès
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2016-01-09 21:26 Ludovic Courtès
2016-01-09 22:52 ` Andreas Enge
2016-01-10 8:32 ` Ricardo Wurmus
2016-01-11 3:37 ` Christopher Allan Webber
2016-01-11 15:48 ` Eric Bavier
2016-01-12 7:50 ` Ricardo Wurmus
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this external index
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.