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

[Leo Famulari]

On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 08:08:49AM +0100, Ricardo Wurmus wrote:
> 
> 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”).

I agree about the boilerplate but I am wondering, is there a tool to get
the list of modules imported for a particular package?

> 
> 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
>