[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Agreeing on some "rules" for packaging.
From: |
Ludovic Courtès |
Subject: |
Re: Agreeing on some "rules" for packaging. |
Date: |
Wed, 28 Aug 2013 22:57:45 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.130007 (Ma Gnus v0.7) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) |
Cyril Roelandt <address@hidden> skribis:
> On 08/28/2013 02:51 PM, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>> Cyril Roelandt <address@hidden> skribis:
[...]
>>> I would also like to define a standard way to order the "#:use-module"
>>> at the beginning of each file, and agree on other "cosmetic" rules.
>>
>> Not convinced about the ordering. ;-)
>>
>
> Isn't there such a convention in Scheme ?
Not that I know of.
I generally put the (guix ...) modules first, and the (gnu ...) second,
I think. IOW, the “foundational” first.
>> These are good examples of the kind of rules we may want to discuss and
>> adopt.
>
>
> I'm also wondering how to name python packages. foo ? python-foo and
> python3-foo ? python2-foo and python-foo ?
Presumably pythonX-foo. Andreas?
Ludo’.
- Re: Agreeing on some "rules" for packaging., (continued)
- Re: Agreeing on some "rules" for packaging., Ludovic Courtès, 2013/08/28
- Re: Agreeing on some "rules" for packaging., Cyril Roelandt, 2013/08/28
- Re: Agreeing on some "rules" for packaging., Andreas Enge, 2013/08/30
- Re: Agreeing on some "rules" for packaging., Ludovic Courtès, 2013/08/31
- Re: Agreeing on some "rules" for packaging., Andreas Enge, 2013/08/31
- Re: Agreeing on some "rules" for packaging., Ludovic Courtès, 2013/08/31
- Re: Agreeing on some "rules" for packaging.,
Ludovic Courtès <=
Re: Agreeing on some "rules" for packaging., Nikita Karetnikov, 2013/08/30