Re: 2 ideas

[Nils Gillmann]

Chris Marusich transcribed 2.2K bytes:
> Ricardo Wurmus <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> > It could be useful to have application-specific setup notes in a
> > well-known location that is gathered when the profile is built.
> 
> Maybe we could begin by adding a simple, optional field
> ("post-install-notes", maybe?) to the <package> record type?  We could
> maybe print the notes in the output of invocations like "guix package
> --show=foo".  We could also add a profile hook to generate a simple
> summary of such documentation for a given profile, in a specific
> location (not sure where - depends on the format, maybe, but somewhere
> in $GUIX_PROFILE/share?).

I still think $out/guix/doc/ would be a good idea (so the summary in
$GUIX_PROFILE/guix/doc), but other than that it seems like a good idea.

> > I would not like these notes to be printed automatically upon
> > installation, but generating a file with important notes seems like a
> > good idea in general.
> 
> I also think it's a good idea.  It seems potentially more useful than
> maintaining separate documentation in the manual or in a wiki, too
> (although that is certainly useful, as well).  There is something to be
> said for "self-documenting" package definitions.  It would have helped
> me to learn, for example, that to play additional media types in
> Rhythmbox (from the rhythmbox package), I needed to install additional
> GStreamer plugins (from the gst-libav package, I think).

Wouldn't this be a case for optional-inputs (list)? This is what I want
to provide. The output of it should tell you for which feature you need
which independent runtime dependency.

It's an entirely new subject, but you seem to be getting in that direction,
right?

Not everyone is aware of info, and we can not write and adjust man pages
for every application. With our continued diverging from Unix traditions,
self-documented package modules seem like the right choice - for both
users as well as developers and "middle-ware users".
> 
> -- 
> Chris