Re: [PATCH] Suggest `guix.scm' for upstream maintainers.

[Ludovic Courtès]

"Thompson, David" <address@hidden> skribis:

> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 11:03 AM, Ludovic Courtès <address@hidden> wrote:
>> Jan Nieuwenhuizen <address@hidden> skribis:
>>
>>> From fc6dd2108dae76e09e1bfcd6d04c36943469434f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>>> From: Jan Nieuwenhuizen <address@hidden>
>>> Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2016 22:18:48 +0100
>>> Subject: [PATCH] Suggest `guix.scm' for upstream maintainers.
>>>
>>> * doc/guix.texi (Invoking guix package): Suggest `guix.scm'.
>>> ---
>>>  doc/guix.texi | 2 +-
>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/doc/guix.texi b/doc/guix.texi
>>> index 06b40fa..f23c7fc 100644
>>> --- a/doc/guix.texi
>>> +++ b/doc/guix.texi
>>> @@ -1350,7 +1350,7 @@ As an example, @var{file} might contain a definition 
>>> like this
>>>  @verbatiminclude package-hello.scm
>>>  @end example
>>>
>>> -Developers may find it useful to include such a @file{package.scm} file
>>> +Developers may find it useful to include such a @file{guix.scm} file
>>
>> Fine with me, but what’s the rationale?  I think we need Dave’s approval
>> on this crucial part.  :-)
>
> I approve!
>
> For background, I used to use 'package.scm' files, but jao from the
> Geiser project suggested 'guix.scm' for better clarity considering
> that there are other Scheme-only packaging systems out there and it
> might be confusing.  I thought it was a fine idea so I've switched to
> using 'guix.scm' everywhere.  I think it's a good convention to
> recommend.

Makes sense to me.  I’ve applied the patch, thank you!

Ludo’.