[bug#66426] [PATCH 00/65] Export %default-gnu-imported-modules and %default-gnu-modules.

[Maxim Cournoyer]

Hi Liliana,

Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler@gmail.com> writes:

> Am Montag, dem 09.10.2023 um 21:31 -0400 schrieb Maxim Cournoyer:
>> Hi Liliana,
>> 
>> Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler@gmail.com> writes:
>> > Hmm, at the very least I'd like to bikeshed the variable names,
>> > hence my suggestion to encode it into the build system itself,
>> > which would allow any name locally.  %default-anything reads weird
>> > to me, plus it's a mouthful for imported modules.
>> 
>> It seems conventional to me: we have %default-subtitute-urls,
>> %default-channels, %default-include (thousands of matches for
>> '%default-' upon grepping).
> Fair enough, but in the cases you've named it's still %default for more
> than one build system.  Or do you by extension want %default-glib-or-
> gtk-imported-modules?  That's quite a mouthful imho without any
> additional semantics.

That's what I was thinking to in the future yes; add
%default-glib-or-gtk-imported-modules as well as
%default-glib-or-gtk-modules, %default-cmake-imported-modules and
%default-cmake-modules, etc.

The variable names may be somewhat long, but they are not used often and
they should be easy to auto-complete.

>> > WDYT about %gnu-build-modules and %gnu-build-system-modules, where
>> > %gnu-build-system-modules keeps its current intent for being
>> > imported?
>> > Alternatively we could also rename it to %gnu-build-imported-
>> > modules
>> > with a deprecated alias.
>> 
>> People have been adding %gnu-build-system-modules to #:modules
>> erroneously.  Not renaming that would ensure this keeps happening.
>> Having 'imported-modules' in the name seems like it'd make things a
>> bit easier to remember; thus, I think the proposed naming is
>> adequate?
> Perhaps, but I think %gnu-build-modules and %gnu-build-imported-modules
> is better even with that reasoning.

So we'd use for example %glib-or-gtk-build-imported-modules?  The
difference is small to what I proposed (swap the leading default for an
in-middle 'build' -- 2 characters), so I don't think your 'mouthful'
argument holds, but I don't have much of an issue with it, except
perhaps that 'build' is not directly attached to the module namespace,
which is (guix build-systems gnu) for example.

I still prefer my naming, but yeah, we're choosing the color of the bike
shed :-).  If others could tip in, that may help decide, otherwise I'd
prefer leaving it as-is.  Does that sound reasonable?

-- 
Thanks,
Maxim