From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=)
Subject: Re: package dependencies
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 17:47:10 +0100
Message-ID: <87bn9tx9ip.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <87zixjttsa.fsf@gmail.com>
	<20151209201329.20594c2e@weiserose.weiserose.de>
	<20151210045530.GA28215@thebird.nl> <87bn9uxy0l.fsf@gnu.org>
	<20151214062939.GA12226@thebird.nl> <87a8pdz9sk.fsf@gnu.org>
	<20151214092857.GA13044@thebird.nl>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
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]:47714)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1a8WHO-0005s8-My
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 11:47:22 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1a8WHJ-0000bm-Jx
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 11:47:18 -0500
In-Reply-To: <20151214092857.GA13044@thebird.nl> (Pjotr Prins's message of
	"Mon, 14 Dec 2015 10:28:57 +0100")
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-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
To: Pjotr Prins <pjotr.public12@thebird.nl>
Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org

Pjotr Prins <pjotr.public12@thebird.nl> skribis:

> The problem with the main text is that it is written from the view
> point of technology. I would like something more human that reads like
> an instruction for packagers. Be great if we had something useful
> there, otherwise questions will be asked again and again :). And I
> will have to point to guix-notes every time.
>
> I agree my version is less accurate, but it acts like a summing up and
> (actually) is precisely the way I look at these statements. We can
> have both. I am not saying we should replace your section.
>
> Anyway, maybe I am the only one seeing it like this.

Maybe not!  I=E2=80=99m definitely biased, but I haven=E2=80=99t seen or th=
ought of a
way to describe things more concisely without sacrificing accuracy.

Or maybe under =E2=80=9CDefining Packages=E2=80=9D we could give some sort =
of simpler
=E2=80=9Crule of thumb=E2=80=9D and point readers to the reference for deta=
ils?  Would
that work?

Patches welcome!  :-)

Ludo=E2=80=99.