From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp12.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:8:6d80::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms5.migadu.com with LMTPS id eJtyOFFSN2P7JQEAbAwnHQ (envelope-from ) for ; Fri, 30 Sep 2022 22:32:17 +0200 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:8:6d80::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp12.migadu.com with LMTPS id kB+GOFFSN2PzmwAAauVa8A (envelope-from ) for ; Fri, 30 Sep 2022 22:32:17 +0200 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 847A8297C1 for ; Fri, 30 Sep 2022 22:32:17 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost ([::1]:48576 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oeMDv-0006BR-TH for larch@yhetil.org; Fri, 30 Sep 2022 16:03:03 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:48138) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oeMDk-0006BF-DF for help-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 30 Sep 2022 16:02:52 -0400 Received: from lepiller.eu ([2a00:5884:8208::1]:44968) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oeMDh-0001kV-9A for help-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 30 Sep 2022 16:02:51 -0400 Received: from lepiller.eu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lepiller.eu (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id ee737536; Fri, 30 Sep 2022 20:01:41 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=lepiller.eu; h=date:from :to:subject:in-reply-to:references:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=dkim; bh=WHj39ZMUvoW9 pZVY6ebMTuSmIM6ClceBhWvsi4awiSA=; b=PXAs4rbFdvj/vCl0LrtxOXzqNZkk CeXRl/b6y9YySg1c3A5dPqH/BOxCxH+4fkXb9R4U8D8zPLan5IJpVhA0cCL9e1Hb BLjcm3Nbe/E+vPBEhy583U+nE4Eu8OoMpnKdB/7hXLL6bWPlKtnHJiEAJ+nRjiUn C6kT3NX59nzO5EUdl3JPd1AwYkgXqZfEW0OwwrSrcccaqSL/aTIOVHxsI44RQJHp J5/eEdD7rZAPQbsgn9DLgKBGjfOAum9Mr0zmThwXJwW7tJmDTyHJQgKfl7r4rBea b8aroRiSW7la5XhChj3noPW2LN5sBLHpbjIwBvcmRJmJQIGydQb9PJbYBA== Received: by lepiller.eu (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPSA id b45f839b (TLSv1.3:AEAD-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256:NO); Fri, 30 Sep 2022 20:01:41 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2022 22:01:39 +0200 From: Julien Lepiller To: help-guix@gnu.org, Fulbert Subject: Re: duplicate package names in channels User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8F90DA24-0DA6-4D87-B46E-98F4F57D5B95@lepiller.eu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2a00:5884:8208::1; envelope-from=julien@lepiller.eu; helo=lepiller.eu X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.29 X-BeenThere: help-guix@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: help-guix-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "Help-Guix" X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_IN X-Migadu-Country: US ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yhetil.org; s=key1; t=1664569937; h=from:from:sender:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:list-id:list-help: list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-post:dkim-signature; bh=GCi1i4A5EuQCN9FRlET8HR/p4oFSwOmc6SQYyag3ad4=; b=HCIR0RH6Cmi8WciLd8D/QOitvjCpyjGrf97UU1wEkbbW82rMrJKB1WabQD0eBtQ5tttJuV xufScnBHWxu5pyG0vv1asavIhtvcLcGXCwzkvjNnpnfBsK9ySj4aIKTspVmRs4o+PEizFc 37n5zUOLtuhEIvLn7UyB7YCg1x26YpXccSrAcXYaFFuFTuPix+svDkzLcfrJPW6wdEdpns ODabTNOQHuAZjn1SkGqXuna/C7om6Kq77zY34l3yFxvxGZ0uKu7+teNSWnT5NxaTOVEbjM dkKMQciM3AFj/CrEQ9fxUGisALxJiJfiJVDPoT7D9HjMG5UWx0KcRU1JZcaT9g== ARC-Seal: i=1; s=key1; d=yhetil.org; t=1664569937; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=e7Iy/p7xcukNYZt1hjLWcFHrczSfUGJ60Pl5tDajhM9IU9Er5huBNS2N4mfU8JrZoBMiq1 x0SedsTHwW7YT56xWN1d6kGREhxaO0ZES5PXQT3WFVy4JeX0GuwZkjudBp63moodWd8xLW cjDxKV1ETH2U56LoAzHK8eMDJNEoX6/I+p1mEGuV5LhrVGq/B0V2Z2BD/1sGUZx9n82JXa naPQsihq6D7oDgKwQDpMJeyq8Hi59h97PVzGW2LkD6AXMKxjoQDdi9V2eMZYxMP/NRqCen /5J9Y/UfCVxtcMxvlmGZhsWKINTjXkMPWV7GyEmZi9e+M2cRYn+kGKX7qcOmIg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=fail ("body hash did not verify") header.d=lepiller.eu header.s=dkim header.b=PXAs4rbF; dmarc=fail reason="SPF not aligned (relaxed)" header.from=lepiller.eu (policy=none); spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of "help-guix-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom="help-guix-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" X-Migadu-Spam-Score: 6.36 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=fail ("body hash did not verify") header.d=lepiller.eu header.s=dkim header.b=PXAs4rbF; dmarc=fail reason="SPF not aligned (relaxed)" header.from=lepiller.eu (policy=none); spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of "help-guix-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom="help-guix-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" X-Migadu-Queue-Id: 847A8297C1 X-Spam-Score: 6.36 X-Migadu-Scanner: scn1.migadu.com X-TUID: LgL50XEVoaIo Build results are kind of content-addressed, so when two separate packages = yield the same hash, it means they are the same package, and no rebuild is = necessary=2E For the other two questions, it depends from which perspective you're look= ing at=2E From the code point of view, there are no difference between pack= ages from guix and a channel=2E When two packages yield a different hash, t= hey are considered different, so both are built if needed=2E Also, the code= has direct reference to a given package, you can't reference "whatever pro= vides gcc", you have to reference a specific gcc package, either from a cha= nnel or from the main guix=2E So from the code point of view, two packages may have the same name and ev= en version, and this is never ambiguous=2E Because packages are stored as G= uile variables and when you specify a variable name it can only reference o= ne value=2E From=20the user point of view, esp=2E the CLI, you seem to have noticed that= guix will chose the highest version number when you ask for a package with= out an explicit version number=2E This does not change whether packages com= e from a channel or from guix=2E When two packages have the same name and version, guix will arbitrarily (b= ut reproducibly :p) chose one or the other=2E HTH! Le 30 septembre 2022 21:48:31 GMT+02:00, Fulbert a = =C3=A9crit=C2=A0: >Hello=E2=80=89! > >I'm not sure if guix supports similar package names [and version number] >provided in more than one =E2=80=9Cactive=E2=80=9D channels (declared in = the list of >'~/=2Econfig/guix/channels=2Escm, including %default-channels)=E2=80=A6 >a) if 2 packages share their name, version and package definition, >yielding the exact same result, thus sharing the same hash and >/gnu/store/ storage-space (one =E2=80=9Crecognizing=E2=80=9D the other ha= sh, avoiding >redondant build or conflict=E2=80=89?)=E2=80=89; >b) if 2 packages share their name but not the version, thus yielding >distinct hashes, could guix automatically choose the highest available >version, similar to what guix does when it provides multiple versions of >the same name package in the main 'guix channel=E2=80=89?=E2=80=89; >c) if 2 packages share their name and version but do not yield the same >result/hash (=E2=80=A6 that's the only case where I'm abble to see a conf= lict)=2E > >As far as i understand, (c) would be problematic, thus (a) would require >a pre-build of both and conflict management, which is unlikely(?) and >consequently, (b) would require a user to remove manually a package in >the additionnal channel before it leads to (a)=2E > >So, my guess work gives NO, NO and NO, but I would be gratefull if >someone could confirm, eventually with a pointer to the manual or other >doc=2E (I am unable to check that for myself in the sources with any >degree of comprehension, let alone certainty ^^) > >Thanks for guix and best regards, >Fulbert >