Re: package dependencies

[Ludovic Courtès]

Pjotr Prins <address@hidden> skribis:

> The problem with the main text is that it is written from the view
> point of technology. I would like something more human that reads like
> an instruction for packagers. Be great if we had something useful
> there, otherwise questions will be asked again and again :). And I
> will have to point to guix-notes every time.
>
> I agree my version is less accurate, but it acts like a summing up and
> (actually) is precisely the way I look at these statements. We can
> have both. I am not saying we should replace your section.
>
> Anyway, maybe I am the only one seeing it like this.

Maybe not!  I’m definitely biased, but I haven’t seen or thought of a
way to describe things more concisely without sacrificing accuracy.

Or maybe under “Defining Packages” we could give some sort of simpler
“rule of thumb” and point readers to the reference for details?  Would
that work?

Patches welcome!  :-)

Ludo’.