As I wrote previously, my suggestion is only rudimentary and basically an idea sketch. It is not a concrete suggestion.
I'm learning guile scheme, and I have yet to learn guix properly. I was hoping that someone else picked up my vague idea and ran with it. The motivation for this suggestion is to make it easier to spot package variants and maybe even package category. The basic idea is that since I'm just using legal characters for guile symbols, the changes are merely aesthetic for human comprehension. From the perpsective of guix and guile scheme, my suggested package naming convention doesn't change anything. To be able to make a concrete proposal, you will have to wait for a few months during which I will finish learning guile scheme and guix. On Thursday, April 16th, 2026 at 9:07 AM, Simon Tournier <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, 14 Apr 2026 at 05:36, "mr.doojin" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > What about `bash:minimal` or `bash<minimal>` instead of > > `bash-minimal`? Either option makes it easier to recognize package > > variant names. > > > > `/`, `:`, `<`, and `>` are legal characters in guile symbols. > > > > This means package names can also be `emacs/magit:minimal` or > > `emacs/magit<minimal>` instead of `emacs-magit-minimal`. > > Somehow, I’m repeating [1]: > > I’m not sure to get what is different from what it’s already there. > > Maybe. However, this change comes with a lot of modifications that > appear to me impossible in practise. Well, 1. it would be tedious to > have a transition plan – we cannot break all the manifests > overnight. ;-) And 2. this cost does not seem compensated by the > readibility it would bring, IMHO, aside “category” is always a can of > worms. ;-) > > Well, I don’t know if this is discussed elsewhere in parallel. If yes, > please point me where, so that I can read more context. :-) > > That said, replacing the hypothetical package name `emacs-magit-minimal` > by something else isn’t the question. The question is about the > transitional plan for the current package name of variants to other > package names. > > BTW, having a fully documented scheme for package variants and switch to > it – hence coming with a cost! – needs to answer the ambiguity. > > Considering the hypothetical `emacs/magit<minimal>`, what is minimal? > ’emacs’ or ’magit’? Here the example is difficult to resonate about. > Let try to point my point. :-) > > Consider that Magit uses ’emacs-build-system’ which relies on > ’emacs-minimal’. Now, I would like to build Magit with the > ’emacs-build-system’ but using another Emacs than ’emacs-minimal’. How > do you capture this information with the scheme? > > > Cheers, > simon > > > > 1: Re: A new package naming convention? > Simon Tournier <[email protected]> > Mon, 30 Mar 2026 12:00:54 +0200 > id:[email protected] > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/help-guix/2026-03 > https://yhetil.org/guix/[email protected] >
