From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=)
Subject: Re: GNU Distribution
Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2012 21:45:09 +0100
Message-ID: <87txrvc5uy.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <CAEJapvw2wQUsBbrkDrZCGF=mKJurmgWwdLPa4XXAj=knr5PiCA@mail.gmail.com>
	<87txrvdtcv.fsf@gnu.org> <201212092120.11196.andreas@enge.fr>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:60729)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1ThnkP-0000Am-Qo
	for bug-guix@gnu.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2012 15:45:16 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1ThnkO-0001le-N0
	for bug-guix@gnu.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2012 15:45:13 -0500
Received: from mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr ([192.134.164.105]:37295)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>)
	id 1ThnkO-0001lZ-Gc
	for bug-guix@gnu.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2012 15:45:12 -0500
In-Reply-To: <201212092120.11196.andreas@enge.fr> (Andreas Enge's message of
	"Sun, 9 Dec 2012 21:20:11 +0100")
List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix <bug-guix.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/bug-guix>,
	<mailto:bug-guix-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-guix>
List-Post: <mailto:bug-guix@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bug-guix-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-guix>,
	<mailto:bug-guix-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
To: Andreas Enge <andreas@enge.fr>
Cc: bug-guix@gnu.org

Andreas Enge <andreas@enge.fr> skribis:

> This was actually my first deception with Guix: I was looking forward to
> contributing a GNU MPC package, since there was no file mpc.scm; but it
> is actually available, only via multiprecision.scm :-)
>
> Why not having one file per package?

Currently we have more-or-less one file per package, except for sets of
closely related packages, like GMP/MPFR/MPC.

There=E2=80=99s a slight overhead associated with each file (license header,
module declaration, module imports, additional =E2=80=98stats=E2=80=99 when=
 doing
package searches or =E2=80=98--list-available=E2=80=99, etc.)  That=E2=80=
=99s why I thought we
could try an in-between approach like this.

I=E2=80=99m open to suggestions on this front, though!

Thanks,
Ludo=E2=80=99.