guix-patches
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

bug#26733: document (list package output) in operating-system-packages


From: Ludovic Courtès
Subject: bug#26733: document (list package output) in operating-system-packages
Date: Fri, 05 May 2017 09:55:04 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2 (gnu/linux)

Kei Kebreau <address@hidden> skribis:

> Julien Lepiller <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> here is a small patch to document how to make globally visible a
>> specific output of a package.
>>
>>>From 6a71d7613bbabdde9d43de5ff09601195f9f49ee Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Julien Lepiller <address@hidden>
>> Date: Mon, 1 May 2017 15:44:31 +0200
>> Subject: [PATCH] doc: Document (list package output) syntax in
>>  operanting-system-packages.
>>
>> * doc/guix.texi (Globally-Visible Packages): Document (PACKAGE OUTPUT) 
>> syntax.
>> ---
>>  doc/guix.texi | 14 +++++++++++++-
>>  1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/doc/guix.texi b/doc/guix.texi
>> index 957ce2bab..3ae9a1cd5 100644
>> --- a/doc/guix.texi
>> +++ b/doc/guix.texi
>> @@ -7678,7 +7678,19 @@ provides all the tools one would expect for basic 
>> user and administrator
>>  tasks---including the GNU Core Utilities, the GNU Networking Utilities,
>>  the GNU Zile lightweight text editor, @command{find}, @command{grep},
>>  etc.  The example above adds tcpdump to those, taken from the @code{(gnu
>> -packages admin)} module (@pxref{Package Modules}).
>> +packages admin)} module (@pxref{Package Modules}).  The
>> address@hidden(list package output)} syntax can be used to add a specific 
>> output
>> +of a package:
>> +
>> address@hidden
>> +(use-modules (gnu packages))
>> +(use-modules (gnu packages dns))
>> +
>> +(operating-system
>> +  ;; ...
>> +  (packages (cons (list bind "utils")
>> +                  %base-packages)))
>> address@hidden lisp
>>  
>>  @findex specification->package
>>  Referring to packages by variable name, like @var{tcpdump} above, has
>
> At first glance this change looks okay, but I'll wait for a second
> opinion to be safe (I don't usually review documentation changes).

LGTM too.

Thanks,
Ludo’.





reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]