Re: potluck in the house

[Ludovic Courtès]

Andy Wingo <address@hidden> skribis:

> On Fri 14 Apr 2017 14:54, address@hidden (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>
>>> I think we should make it so that the lower-potluck-package process
>>> prefers "core" packages if available, and only goes to the channel if
>>> the core does not provide a package matching the specification.
>>>
>>> I think this is a question for the design of channels though: how to
>>> resolve dynamically scoped (specification->package) links in the
>>> presence of channels.
>>
>> ‘specification->package’ already transparently handles things in
>> GUIX_PACKAGE_PATH, so I suspect it wouldn’t be very different.
>>
>> WDYT?
>
> I don't know.  I see a danger if person A makes a potluck package for
> that depends on Guile, and person B makes a potluck package for some
> development version of Guile with a later version number.  Person A (and
> person A's users) probably don't expect to be using a development
> Guile, so the specifications in person A's package should probably *not*
> resolve person B's guile as the "best" one.  See what I'm saying?
> Tricky stuff.  A hierarchy of potential sources sounds best to me so
> that specification->package only looks for "guile" in the potluck
> GUIX_PACKAGE_PATH if it's not found (possibly with the version
> constraint) in the "main" GUIX_PACKAGE_PATH.

Indeed, good point.  We should have a way to say that some channels have
precedence over other channels.

Ludo’.