Ludovic Courtès <l...@gnu.org> writes:
> Hi Nathaniel, > > Apologies for the delay! > > Nathaniel Nicandro <nathanielnican...@gmail.com> skribis: > >> First off, I want to say thanks to all the Guix contributors. I've >> really enjoyed my time tinkering with my system! This is my first >> post >> to the mailing list after using Guix as my main operating system for >> the >> past few years. > > Nice, welcome! :-) > >> I've found that when I tried to use the example configuration for >> the >> dicod-service in the manual >> (https://guix.gnu.org/manual/en/html_node/Miscellaneous-Services.html#Dictionary-Service) >> I wasn't able to get the wordnet dictionary working at all. > > Oh. (BTW, note that this is the manual for the latest release; when > in > doubt you can also add “/devel” to the URL to see the manual of the > current development head: > <https://guix.gnu.org/manual/devel/en/html_node/Miscellaneous-Services.html#Dictionary-Service>.) > Thanks for the tip. >> I was able to get it working for my use case with the following >> configuration: >> >> (dicod-configuration >> (handlers >> (list (dicod-handler >> (name "wordnet") >> (module "wordnet") >> (options (list #~(string-append "wnhome=" #$wordnet)))))) >> (databases >> (list (dicod-database >> (name "wordnet") >> (handler "wordnet") >> (complex? #t) >> (options (list "merge-defs"))) >> %dicod-database:gcide))) >> >> Should I go ahead and make a documentation change patch or would there >> be another example that would be preferred? > > Fixing the current documentation would be most welcome! And if you > have > other examples in mind, we can add them too. I'll sumbit a patch to fix the example. I'll look out for other examples while I browse the documentation and update my system. All that I've looked at so far has worked out for me, except for this. > > We could also add the ‘dicod-database’ definition for WordNet right > into > (gnu services dict), so it’s readily usable, like that of GCIDE. Doing this would mean that we also have to do something about the `dicod-handler` definition since the database definition depends on it. Maybe allow a `dicod-handler` in the `handler` field of a `dicod-database` so that the WordNet database definition can be self-contained without having to provide a handler definition in the `handlers` field of a `dicod-configuration`? This way we can do as you say. > > Thanks! > > Ludo’. -- Nathaniel
