From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ben Woodcroft <b.woodcroft@uq.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Per-package updaters?
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 09:48:54 +1000
Message-ID: <6238646e-d115-3b5c-c266-d6aa8f679cf6@uq.edu.au>
References: <87o9zyka6c.fsf@elephly.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:37584)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <b.woodcroft@uq.edu.au>) id 1cLf0x-00008A-TU
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 26 Dec 2016 18:49:12 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <b.woodcroft@uq.edu.au>) id 1cLf0u-0007G4-SX
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 26 Dec 2016 18:49:11 -0500
Received: from mailhub1.soe.uq.edu.au ([130.102.132.208]:37049
	helo=newmailhub.uq.edu.au) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <b.woodcroft@uq.edu.au>) id 1cLf0u-0007FJ-AC
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 26 Dec 2016 18:49:08 -0500
In-Reply-To: <87o9zyka6c.fsf@elephly.net>
List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution."
	<guix-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: "Guix-devel" <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
To: Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net>, "guix-devel@gnu.org" <guix-devel@gnu.org>

Hi Ricardo,


On 27/12/16 01:00, Ricardo Wurmus wrote:
> Hi Guix,
>
> we have a couple of generic package updaters (CPAN, CRAN, Bioconductor,
> Github, GNU, etc), but they don=E2=80=99t nearly cover all of our packa=
ges.  I
> wonder if we should add one-off updaters for individual packages that
> don=E2=80=99t fall into any of the generic classes of updaters.
>
> Another question is how to implement them.  Would there be another
> optional field in package expressions containing a Guile script to run
> to determine updates for the current package?
>
> What are your opinions on this?
How about we piggy-back on the good work of others, by putting a=20
declaration in the package definition that the package has sister=20
packages in other package managers? This would involve a level of=20
munging of the other packager's versions, but this seems not difficult=20
for well disciplined numbering schemes.

ben