Andreas Enge skribis:
> On Sun, Sep 08, 2013 at 04:03:23PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>> Andreas Enge skribis:
>> separate ‘package-with-name-prefix’ procedure, such that we would do:
>> (define package-with-python-2
>> (compose (cut package-with-name-prefix <> "python2-")
>>
On Sun, Sep 08, 2013 at 04:03:23PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Andreas Enge skribis:
> separate ‘package-with-name-prefix’ procedure, such that we would do:
> (define package-with-python-2
> (compose (cut package-with-name-prefix <> "python2-")
> (cut package-with-explicit
Andreas Enge skribis:
> On Sat, Sep 07, 2013 at 02:49:07PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>> Still it’s better to keep it, as a generic version. Then, we can have:
>> (define package-with-python-2
>> (cut package-with-explicit-python <> python-2))
>> and then use that as needed.
>
> I modif
Hello,
and thanks for your comments! I am attaching a new patch.
On Sat, Sep 07, 2013 at 02:49:07PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Still it’s better to keep it, as a generic version. Then, we can have:
> (define package-with-python-2
> (cut package-with-explicit-python <> python-2))
> and
Andreas Enge skribis:
> On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 03:00:27PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>> BTW, I haven’t check whether this is the case already, but we need
>> something like
>> (define (package-with-explicit-python p python)
>> ;; Return a version of P built for PYTHON.
>> (package (
On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 03:00:27PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> BTW, I haven’t check whether this is the case already, but we need
> something like
> (define (package-with-explicit-python p python)
> ;; Return a version of P built for PYTHON.
> (package (inherit p) ...))
> so we can ju
Andreas Enge skribis:
> Apparently, I am getting tired. Especially the variable names must be
> distinct: There is python-pytz (as a module for python=python-3) and
> python2-pytz (as a module for python-2) inside the same scheme module.
Oh, good point. Well, OK then.
(In guile.scm we used a d
Andreas Enge skribis:
> commit 89114f39e4be7ac655fbdd7f00a5f985c8f4ce6b
> Author: Andreas Enge
> Date: Wed Sep 4 22:12:33 2013 +0200
>
> gnu: python: Implement the python naming scheme for pytz and babel.
>
> * gnu/packages/python.scm (pytz): Rename this ...
> * gnu/packages/p
On Wed, Sep 04, 2013 at 10:51:17PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> However, I don’t think that scheme should be followed for variable
> names: it’s tedious to type, and Guile offers mechanisms to
> select/rename bindings imported from other bindings.
> Thus I would do:
> (define pytz
> (packa
On Wed, Sep 04, 2013 at 11:07:44PM +0200, Cyril Roelandt wrote:
> And what should we call python2-pytz ?
The pytz module compiled with python-2 and installed into
lib/python2.7/site-packages/, as opposed to the same module compiled
with the default python-3. Compare python-unidecode and python3-un
Apparently, I am getting tired. Especially the variable names must be
distinct: There is python-pytz (as a module for python=python-3) and
python2-pytz (as a module for python-2) inside the same scheme module.
Unless we wish to create scheme modules python2 and python3, which
I find rather awkward
On 09/04/2013 10:51 PM, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
Thus I would do:
(define pytz
(package
(name "python-pytz")
...))
And what should we call python2-pytz ?
Cyril.
On Wed, Sep 04, 2013 at 10:52:08PM +0200, Cyril Roelandt wrote:
> (define pytz
> (package
> (name "python-pytz")
> ...))
> This is quite Debianish. I like it.
But the alternative (as I suggested in the packaging guidelines) is as
debianish:
> (define python-pytz
> (packag
On 09/04/2013 10:51 PM, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
Andreas Enge skribis:
commit 89114f39e4be7ac655fbdd7f00a5f985c8f4ce6b
Author: Andreas Enge
Date: Wed Sep 4 22:12:33 2013 +0200
gnu: python: Implement the python naming scheme for pytz and babel.
* gnu/packages/python.scm (pytz): Ren
14 matches
Mail list logo
