Re: [PATCH] Suggest `guix.scm' for upstream maintainers.

[Thompson, David]

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 11:03 AM, Ludovic Courtès <address@hidden> wrote:
> Jan Nieuwenhuizen <address@hidden> skribis:
>
>> From fc6dd2108dae76e09e1bfcd6d04c36943469434f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Jan Nieuwenhuizen <address@hidden>
>> Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2016 22:18:48 +0100
>> Subject: [PATCH] Suggest `guix.scm' for upstream maintainers.
>>
>> * doc/guix.texi (Invoking guix package): Suggest `guix.scm'.
>> ---
>>  doc/guix.texi | 2 +-
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/doc/guix.texi b/doc/guix.texi
>> index 06b40fa..f23c7fc 100644
>> --- a/doc/guix.texi
>> +++ b/doc/guix.texi
>> @@ -1350,7 +1350,7 @@ As an example, @var{file} might contain a definition 
>> like this
>>  @verbatiminclude package-hello.scm
>>  @end example
>>
>> -Developers may find it useful to include such a @file{package.scm} file
>> +Developers may find it useful to include such a @file{guix.scm} file
>
> Fine with me, but what’s the rationale?  I think we need Dave’s approval
> on this crucial part.  :-)

I approve!

For background, I used to use 'package.scm' files, but jao from the
Geiser project suggested 'guix.scm' for better clarity considering
that there are other Scheme-only packaging systems out there and it
might be confusing.  I thought it was a fine idea so I've switched to
using 'guix.scm' everywhere.  I think it's a good convention to
recommend.

- Dave