[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Package file indexing
From: |
zimoun |
Subject: |
Re: Package file indexing |
Date: |
Thu, 9 Jan 2020 18:04:39 +0100 |
On Thu, 9 Jan 2020 at 16:41, Pierre Neidhardt <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> zimoun <address@hidden> writes:
>
> >> The benefit of "/" is that it works _incidentally_. If you are looking
> >> for "bin/hg", then `guix search bin/hg` will do the right thing.
> >
> > I agree.
> >
> > To be clear, to search the binary 'hg', I find clearer "guix search bin/hg".
> > However, to search any file which you do not the path, I find clearer
> > "guix search file:foo.h".
>
> To be clear, you don't need to know the path. It's enough to know the
> basename, e.g. `guix search /foo.h`.
I do not find "/foo.h" clear. I prefer "file:foo.h".
What I naturally do is:
- guix search bin/hg
- guix search file:hg
It appears to me awkward to type "guix search /hg". But I can live with. :-)
> >> What I meant is that we already have a subcommand that outputs a
> >> property of the given packages, i.e. "guix size". If I'm not mistaken,
> >> there is no "guix package" flag that displays any property for the given
> >> packages.
> >
> > You are suggesting "guix size emacs --list-files", right?
>
> No, I'm saying that if we follow the current approach for printing our
> package properties, we should have
>
> guix list-files emacs
Sorry to be slow but I do not understand why a complete subcommand is required?
To me, it seems better to add an "--list-files" to "guix package" or
"guix show".
Cheers,
simon
Re: Package file indexing, Pierre Neidhardt, 2020/01/09
- Re: Package file indexing, zimoun, 2020/01/09
- Re: Package file indexing, Pierre Neidhardt, 2020/01/09
- Re: Package file indexing, zimoun, 2020/01/09
- Re: Package file indexing, Pierre Neidhardt, 2020/01/09
- Re: Package file indexing,
zimoun <=
- Re: Package file indexing, Pierre Neidhardt, 2020/01/09
Re: Package file indexing, Pierre Neidhardt, 2020/01/15