I suggest `bash<minimal>` for a starter, but you can come up with a better package naming convention. My suggestion is rudimentary.
It's probably too late to change existing package names, but someone can propose a better package naming convention for new packages? On Wednesday, April 15th, 2026 at 7:59 AM, Sergio Pastor Pérez <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > "mr.doojin" <[email protected]> writes: > > > What about `bash:minimal` or `bash<minimal>` instead of `bash-minimal`? > > Either option makes it easier to recognize package variant names. > > I feel like the `:` character could confuse some people since it looks > similar to specifying a different derivation output in package specs, > eg: `guix shell glibc:static`. > > Other symbols will probably be fine. > > > Best regards, > Sergio >
