[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH] Add package definition for GNU XaoS.
From: |
Ludovic Courtès |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH] Add package definition for GNU XaoS. |
Date: |
Wed, 30 Dec 2015 16:51:42 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux) |
Alex Kost <address@hidden> skribis:
> Alex Kost (2015-12-21 15:42 +0300) wrote:
>
>> Fabian Harfert (2015-12-15 23:02 +0300) wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>> @@ -53,6 +54,7 @@
>>> #:use-module (gnu packages ghostscript)
>>> #:use-module (gnu packages glib)
>>> #:use-module (gnu packages gtk)
>>> + #:use-module (gnu packages image)
>>
>> Our (gnu packages image) module uses (gnu packages maths). I wouldn't
>> add this circularity, I think it was better to have xaos in a separate
>> module. But actually I don't know if it's a real issue and what our
>> policy on such things is. I hope more experienced guix/guile people
>> will tell if we should avoid such circularities.
>
> Sorry for bumping, just to prevent this package from burying in ML.
>
> Originally Fabian sent a patch for separate "xaos.scm" file. Then
> Andreas suggested to move it to "maths.scm". But this will lead to the
> mentioned circularity:
> (gnu packages image) already uses (gnu packages maths)
> and after this patch:
> (gnu packages maths) will use (gnu packages image).
>
> Is it OK to leave it like this, or should 'xaos' be left in a
> separate file?
It’s OK to leave it as is.
Module circularity are not a problem, unless there are circular
*top-level* references.
That is, if maths.scm does, say:
(define foo libpng)
and image.scm does:
(define bar lapack)
then we have a problem.
Ludo’.