The problem with the main text is that it is written from the view point of technology. I would like something more human that reads like an instruction for packagers. Be great if we had something useful there, otherwise questions will be asked again and again :). And I will have to point to guix-notes every time.
I agree my version is less accurate, but it acts like a summing up and (actually) is precisely the way I look at these statements. We can have both. I am not saying we should replace your section. Anyway, maybe I am the only one seeing it like this. Pj. On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 09:58:19AM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > Pjotr Prins <pjotr.publi...@thebird.nl> skribis: > > > Thanks Ludo. I still think it could be made a little clearer from the > > packager's > > perspective. How about concluding it with something like: > > > > In short, to create a package, by default you should use 'inputs' for > > dependencies. Use 'native-inputs' for tools used at build-time, but > > not at runtime and use propagated-inputs when the other two do not > > suffice. > > This is certainly shorter, but the problem I have with that is that it > does not accurately explain what’s going on. The current text is > admittedly more verbose, but I think it is more accurate. > > Hope that makes sense. > > Ludo’. > --
