Re: Outdated dicod-service example in manual

[Nathaniel Nicandro <nathanielnicandro@gmail.com>]

Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:

> Hi Nathaniel,
>
> Apologies for the delay!
>
> Nathaniel Nicandro <nathanielnicandro@gmail.com> skribis:
>
>> First off, I want to say thanks to all the Guix contributors.  I've
>> really enjoyed my time tinkering with my system!  This is my first
>> post
>> to the mailing list after using Guix as my main operating system for
>> the
>> past few years.
>
> Nice, welcome!  :-)
>
>> I've found that when I tried to use the example configuration for
>> the
>> dicod-service in the manual
>> (https://guix.gnu.org/manual/en/html_node/Miscellaneous-Services.html#Dictionary-Service)
>> I wasn't able to get the wordnet dictionary working at all.
>
> Oh.  (BTW, note that this is the manual for the latest release; when
> in
> doubt you can also add “/devel” to the URL to see the manual of the
> current development head:
> <https://guix.gnu.org/manual/devel/en/html_node/Miscellaneous-Services.html#Dictionary-Service>.)
>

Thanks for the tip.

>> I was able to get it working for my use case with the following configuration:
>>
>>     (dicod-configuration
>>        (handlers
>>         (list (dicod-handler
>>                (name "wordnet")
>>                (module "wordnet")
>>                (options (list #~(string-append "wnhome=" #$wordnet))))))
>>        (databases
>>         (list (dicod-database
>>                (name "wordnet")
>>                (handler "wordnet")
>>                (complex? #t)
>>                (options (list "merge-defs")))
>>               %dicod-database:gcide)))
>>
>> Should I go ahead and make a documentation change patch or would there
>> be another example that would be preferred?
>
> Fixing the current documentation would be most welcome!  And if you
> have
> other examples in mind, we can add them too.

I'll sumbit a patch to fix the example.  I'll look out for other
examples while I browse the documentation and update my system.  All
that I've looked at so far has worked out for me, except for this.

>
> We could also add the ‘dicod-database’ definition for WordNet right
> into
> (gnu services dict), so it’s readily usable, like that of GCIDE.

Doing this would mean that we also have to do something about the
`dicod-handler` definition since the database definition depends on it.
Maybe allow a `dicod-handler` in the `handler` field of a `dicod-database` so that the WordNet database definition can be self-contained without having to provide a handler definition in the `handlers` field of a `dicod-configuration`?  This way we can do as you say.

>
> Thanks!
>
> Ludo’.


-- 
Nathaniel