Re: [PATCH 0/1] Move cursynth to music.scm

[Ricardo Wurmus]

Leo Famulari <address@hidden> writes:

> On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 05:17:15PM -0600, Eric Bavier wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Dec 2015 18:09:09 -0500
>> Leo Famulari <address@hidden> wrote:
>> 
>> > I think it would be better for this software synthesizer to be in
>> > music.scm.
>> > 
>> > Thoughts?
>> 
>> IIRC, the original thought was that many GNU packages have their own
>> modules, so this was done for cursynth as well.
>
> Okay, sure.

I think it would be nice to have cursynth in “music.scm”.  I wasn’t
fully aware of its existence, and I’m at home in “audio.scm” and
“music.scm” :)

> To be honest, I don't understand the reasoning behind grouping packages
> into modules. Is it just for humans or is there some technical reason
> for it?

It’s mostly for humans AFAIU.  Personally, I prefer try to avoid a
proliferation of one-off modules; maybe because I don’t like the
boilerplate (license header, module definition with imports, adding the
module to “gnu-system.am”).

Grouping packages in modules also allows user interfaces like guix-web
to narrow results to just a single module.  For example, searching for
“bioinfo” in guix-web shows me everything from the “bioinformatics.scm”
module, even though not all packages there contain the string “bioinfo”
in their synopsis/description.

~~ Ricardo