From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christopher Baines Subject: Re: How should ambiguous package specifications be handled? Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2020 10:16:06 +0000 Message-ID: <87sgk2ikux.fsf@cbaines.net> References: <87k15ippk9.fsf@cbaines.net> <87r1zqmskn.fsf@nckx> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:36120) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ivexi-00066G-2p for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 26 Jan 2020 05:16:14 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ivexg-0001lr-Vc for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 26 Jan 2020 05:16:13 -0500 Received: from mira.cbaines.net ([2a01:7e00::f03c:91ff:fe69:8da9]:35322) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ivexg-0001kg-Pj for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 26 Jan 2020 05:16:12 -0500 In-reply-to: <87r1zqmskn.fsf@nckx> 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: me@tobias.gr Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Tobias Geerinckx-Rice writes: > Christopher, > > Christopher Baines =E5=86=99=E9=81=93=EF=BC=9A >> We've had one for a while (itstool 2.0.6), and another has recently >> been >> introduced (sassc 3.6.1). > > Thanks for noticing this! > > The sassc variant being visible was definitely a mistake. I added it > as a local variable first and forgot to hide it after changing my > mind. This is now fixed. Great, thanks for fixing the sassc issue :) >> Given there do seem to be ways of avoiding these ambiguous package >> specifications, would it be helpful to have a lint warning that >> identifies a package as being ambiguous (as it shares the name and >> version with another package)? > > That's a good idea at the very least. I don't think such duplication > is ever justified. Good good, I'll add it to my list of things to look at. Thanks, Chris --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQKTBAEBCgB9FiEEPonu50WOcg2XVOCyXiijOwuE9XcFAl4tZuZfFIAAAAAALgAo aXNzdWVyLWZwckBub3RhdGlvbnMub3BlbnBncC5maWZ0aGhvcnNlbWFuLm5ldDNF ODlFRUU3NDU4RTcyMEQ5NzU0RTBCMjVFMjhBMzNCMEI4NEY1NzcACgkQXiijOwuE 9XfvBA//fjeabAqwm91pPxsWyakgpwwKYZOzfGrXD2PTLoB+dKAuvkBnc8hX6Vgh DQFk7cm4xueVMwSXPUj5b/zODyxf4kbVd1TQ30OURDeRdJW3yjch7N3oX2VImEa0 IBGcwOHbRrZwH2acKa5sDn0BYsPFZK7R0RrmZnqttYwVrbqlNS6Nj2r08RpDp9Sp HTJWj3N7OB8MyzegCrDlDG81B40DnJBZjjc0Bce1VvxNfXnd9cLC8td7MT7Lnhyd GqmQG8u6iyTR7Cx0fS/zmY4QaI3gdT0Z8zcahekgN13LCefpTP0k8wClr0fxWeLC bh/Q9hKF/zFavlpGMlCBT+jOHWupMn5xcxZT9IqHbPI9Srv5+ooIEWKCJJmXA0TE 83LyEcLMNxIzGfj8K+Qkx60S1FkVO2zuurtDBwW/fIOUfIZJmHZmSs9xxoBmroBh ULmLfaUsWL27BPaMSbN0kg6B+meYRNBEigmwTX2dReD1SyQsjvm8zTQPHIAlS9y6 h8eAllSZvQfSXxBE0saAfrC5Xp7HL2BxGrTdXIjHZOLKH7oB2ae5v7mWu5XDw70V xn/Y7doq3cluXdjZxaWba2pZQqPQy/HvjU/bBp3HU70tMu/OuWMZTGj1r1DaVOgo 2KZIiBVtwFBnwwAWGF2rhNeOO6vlnSIwoKr7ALh50+vpYj6wC9A= =Sj3d -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--