From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pierre Neidhardt Subject: Re: Parameterized packages Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2020 17:31:59 +0100 Message-ID: <87d0bi11ts.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> References: <8736ldq74z.fsf@netris.org> <20190719202906.lbanx5puk7t6q4cr@cf0> <87a7753boq.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <87h813wah0.fsf@gnu.org> <87v9piut40.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <87o8v5ukgb.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <87d0blhr9s.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <20200116190644.uytvzvypuvdwh2iq@n0> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:46019) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1isUXV-00079o-GL for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 17 Jan 2020 11:32:07 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1isUXT-0003u3-SA for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 17 Jan 2020 11:32:05 -0500 Received: from relay11.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.178.231]:34799) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1isUXT-0003pM-M9 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 17 Jan 2020 11:32:03 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20200116190644.uytvzvypuvdwh2iq@n0> 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-mx.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: ison , zimoun Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi ison! ison writes: > Maybe the current discussion is trying too hard to emulate Gentoo's USE > flags and dependency graph concept (perhaps its my fault for bringing up > global flags). But that feels like introducing "side effects", and maybe = the > whole idea should be treated more "functionally" in Guix. > > That is, simplify the problem to the mere concept of passing arguments to > functions and nothing more. Take the headless server example: some parame= ter > is passed to a package such as > '("-X") > That package would then be entirely responsible for what to do with them.= If > the package decides not to pass the same parameters to its inputs then the > inputs are simply built without any parameters. Yes, I am starting to come to a similar conclusion. I think this makes more sense in terms of maintainability. What that in mind, maintenance would still get more complex than it is today: a package with N parameters would have 2^N possible outputs. It quickly gets hard to test them all. That said, we can probably assume that in most cases parameters won't conflict with each other. =2D-=20 Pierre Neidhardt https://ambrevar.xyz/ --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEUPM+LlsMPZAEJKvom9z0l6S7zH8FAl4h4X8ACgkQm9z0l6S7 zH83egf+LcjnuZhIdjsokkQ4vslTH3cITZdgdxxH2yIHIXwcT+QNKyCrw4/nUSyL 6r3r6t0WersGQP1/aOme+touWBklbsP/ZEt/ONRhuiLDmo9j0Nc5wImcANSYcXS1 NnfMJ0qCPAKHUdwkB3npzi0rNFsBiMq8SQn09nDNeRX8sh5iBfEBvXe+cIMr0SrU 6E/Dbdp8AT0SFa+XF00G41ZgAAOaoV/Eeu2tqX3IvYtR/f1SR/dRD9qJnSgFpcwk eFaRDlRFJRtFfWpX4Yrl01jFZ8mEld2hFEaTF7NJ80YLGUmonPMJAtBc5VjFZ6KY 6IdlijVbEXdQpa1mlZZxjg+bH841qA== =2Zhh -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--