Re: Do we actually need a “packages” field?

[Ricardo Wurmus]

zimoun <address@hidden> writes:

> Well, considering Mercurial, does it become?
>
> -8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
> process: fetch-data
> [...]
>   #{mercurial}/bin/hg clone {{inputs}} {{outputs}}
> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
>
> I am not sure it is more readable.
> Moreover the user has to know the path.

Yes.

> Even I am not sure to understand why you want to change, from my
> opinion, and based on my user experience, it does not matter where I
> have to provide the package name but the issue is to find the name of
> the package (and the module even if specification->package and related
> help).

Yeah, I agree.  I don’t *want* to change it as I think it looks clearer
the way it is now.

I was just exploring that path and by the time I finished writing the
email I decided to just ask for input and not waste the description of
my thoughts :)

--
Ricardo