Jelle Licht writes: > Ludovic Courtès writes: > >> Hi Jelle, >> >> Is anything holding this back? >> >> https://bugs.gnu.org/27791 > > It just fell through the cracks, thanks for reminding me :-). > I still needed to address some of Marius' concerns though... > >> >> TIA! :-) >> >> Ludo’. >> >> Marius Bakke skribis: >> >>> Hi Jelle, >>> >>> Jelle Licht writes: >>> >>>> Hello guix, >>>> >>>> Attached is a patch to include passmenu, a dmenu interface to the pass >>>> password store. >>>> >>>> I was not quite sure how to structure this patch, as it basically installs >>>> and wraps a shell script from the `password-store' sources. We could >>>> instead include it as a separate output of our `password-store' package, >>>> but I already had it like this in my GUIX_PACKAGE_PATH and I was not even >>>> sure if that approach was in general preferable. >>> >>> I don't think wrapping it with dmenu in PATH is necessary. Users of this >>> script are expected to have dmenu from before, and may want to use >>> another implementation (e.g. rofi), another version, etc. > > While I agree with your general thoughts, wasn't guix supposed to > prevent this ad-hoc mishmash of software? If someone wants to use > another implementation (e.g. rofi), they could just create their own > package that inherits from `password-store' and overrides the "dmenu" > input. Case in point, I am not currently a user of dmenu (besides > indirectly through the passmenu script). In the "rofi" case it would be overriding dmenu and providing some extra command-line arguments, but overall I agree with you and don't really have a strong opinion. To my knowledge there is no established policy for when to allow "impurities" (aka unqualified paths), but optional dependencies often get a free pass. I'm happy either way, so do what you think is best :)