Re: Toward 0.2

[Ludovic Courtès]

Nikita Karetnikov <address@hidden> skribis:

>> With the recently-added ‘package-output’ (singular):
>
>> scheme@(guile-user)> (package-output s binutils "out")
>> $2 = "/nix/store/bfh5c2a4is27jdmc811fp6g0jfac7fiw-binutils-2.22"
>> scheme@(guile-user)> (package-output s binutils "lib")
>> $3 = "/nix/store/n29brzqlhjkzww51labk9anx493gl4d3-binutils-2.22-lib"
>
> What's the value of 's' here?

(define s (open-connection))

> There is no explanation in the docstrings of 'package-derivation',
> 'package-cross-derivation', and 'package-output'.

For the ‘store’ parameter you mean?  We could add one, but this is a
convention shared by (guix derivations) and (guix packages), so I’m not
sure docstrings should be “cluttered” this way.

> Are you sure that it's OK to have 'package-output' and 'package-outputs'
> in the same module?  Can we rename one?

I agree we should be caution with this sort of names, but I’ve
considered it OK.  There’s a tension between the length and expressivity
of a name.

Ludo’.