On Thu, 9 Jan 2020 at 16:41, Pierre Neidhardt <m...@ambrevar.xyz> wrote: > > zimoun <zimon.touto...@gmail.com> 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