zimoun <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> writes:

> It appears to me better for 2 reasons:
>  1. because obviously "filesearch" is a kind of "search" ;-) so it
> adds consistency.
>  2. because it allows (in the near future) mixed research: "guix
> search bin/hg python" applying the "python" filter only to the
> packages returned by "bin/hg". And "guix search python bin/hg" search
> the binary file "hg" only to the packages matching "python.

Agreed.

>> --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
>> name: jami
>
> [...]
>
>> filepaths:
>> + bin/foo
>> + share/bar/bin/foo-blah
>> relevance: 24
>> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
>
> How do you compute the relevance/score?

I've copy-pasted the current output for Jami, I did not touch it in a
particular way.

> For example, let consider 2 packages:
>
>  a- 'bin/foo'
>  b- 'share/baz/bin/foo'
>
> How to do you order/score the result? What do you expect first? The
> package a- I guess.
> Therefore, weight should be applied, isn't it?

Agreed.

>> I suggest the following:
>>
>> - Add a "--search-file-paths=[auto|on|off]" option.
>
> I do not find this option name explaining by itself. Personally, I am
> inclined to provide a path to the option and not a boolean.

If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting this syntax to return
packages matching "python-" and with files matching "foo.*bar".

  guix search --file-path="foo.*bar" python-

What I originally suggested is that we could equivalently do:

  guix search "/foo.*bar" python-

Forget about the --search-file-paths option, it's probably not necessary.

> Time to time, I am looking for header C file or latex style but I do
> not know the path. I would like to have something like:
>
>   guix search gmsh.h
> or
>  guix search ieee*.sty

That's OK, if you know the basename then "/gmsh.h" will match.
If you only know a substring of the basename, then "/.*gmsh.h" will
match too.

> IMHO, it should be included under "guix package", i.e.,
>
>   guix package gmsh --list-files

Why not, but then this does not match the interface we have with "guix
size".

Could we also have "guix package gmsh --size"?  Would we deprecate "guix
size" then?

If not, then for the sake of consistency I'd prefer to have "guix list-files".

-- 
Pierre Neidhardt
https://ambrevar.xyz/