From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add package definition for GNU XaoS. Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 16:51:42 +0100 Message-ID: <87y4ccszn5.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20151215205144.2b2ff5f1@himbaca> <20151215210203.5d2accca@himbaca> <87wps83rd2.fsf@gmail.com> <87egedmtxt.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:56230) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aEJ2S-0000n6-NN for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 10:51:49 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aEJ2P-0002GJ-Db for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 10:51:48 -0500 In-Reply-To: <87egedmtxt.fsf@gmail.com> (Alex Kost's message of "Wed, 23 Dec 2015 11:48:46 +0300") 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.org@gnu.org Sender: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Alex Kost Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org Alex Kost skribis: > Alex Kost (2015-12-21 15:42 +0300) wrote: > >> Fabian Harfert (2015-12-15 23:02 +0300) wrote: >> >> [...] >>> @@ -53,6 +54,7 @@ >>> #:use-module (gnu packages ghostscript) >>> #:use-module (gnu packages glib) >>> #:use-module (gnu packages gtk) >>> + #:use-module (gnu packages image) >> >> Our (gnu packages image) module uses (gnu packages maths). I wouldn't >> add this circularity, I think it was better to have xaos in a separate >> module. But actually I don't know if it's a real issue and what our >> policy on such things is. I hope more experienced guix/guile people >> will tell if we should avoid such circularities. > > Sorry for bumping, just to prevent this package from burying in ML. > > Originally Fabian sent a patch for separate "xaos.scm" file. Then > Andreas suggested to move it to "maths.scm". But this will lead to the > mentioned circularity: > (gnu packages image) already uses (gnu packages maths) > and after this patch: > (gnu packages maths) will use (gnu packages image). > > Is it OK to leave it like this, or should 'xaos' be left in a > separate file? It=E2=80=99s OK to leave it as is. Module circularity are not a problem, unless there are circular *top-level* references. That is, if maths.scm does, say: (define foo libpng) and image.scm does: (define bar lapack) then we have a problem. Ludo=E2=80=99.