Hi Chris,
Chris Marusich skribis:
> Is "guix package --search" case-insensitive? The manual ((guix)
> Invoking guix package) does not seem to mention it.
Per guix/scripts/package.scm, it is case-insensitive:
--8<---cut here---start->8---
(('search _)
Hi,
Christopher Lemmer Webber skribis:
> I wonder for keywords that would be awkward to "force" into the
> description if we could have an "extra keywords" section? Then we can
> skip tagging, but in case a package's description didn't comfortably fit
> that word, you can still find it by it.
Hi Ludo,
> Is there anything specific that you think could be borrowed from
> aptitude in the current Guix framework?
Once the recutils doc carefully read, all the features from aptitude
that I use are already in recutils. :-)
Even, the option -e seems more powerful.
Something maybe useful
On 2018-12-20 11:57, Christopher Lemmer Webber wrote:
snip
I wonder for keywords that would be awkward to "force" into the
description if we could have an "extra keywords" section? Then we can
skip tagging, but in case a package's description didn't comfortably fit
that word, you can still
Ludovic Courtès writes:
> Hello,
>
> zimoun skribis:
>
>>> And how the regexp works ?
>>> I am not able to find some doc... I am diving in the code but it is
>>> not easy to find. :-)
>>
>> If I understand well, basically the code is here, right?
>>
Ludovic Courtès writes:
> Hello,
>
> zimoun skribis:
>
>>> And how the regexp works ?
>>> I am not able to find some doc... I am diving in the code but it is
>>> not easy to find. :-)
>>
>> If I understand well, basically the code is here, right?
>>
zimoun skribis:
>> Ah ha! :-) Now the question is whether this is a convenient and
>> efficient way to search for packages.
>
> As an happy user of Debian, I like the aptitude way convenient and
> efficient to search packages.
> https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/aptitude/ch02s04s05.en.html
Hello,
zimoun skribis:
>> And how the regexp works ?
>> I am not able to find some doc... I am diving in the code but it is
>> not easy to find. :-)
>
> If I understand well, basically the code is here, right?
> http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git/tree/guix/scripts/package.scm#n754
>
>
Hi,
I partially answer to myself. ;-)
> And how the regexp works ?
> I am not able to find some doc... I am diving in the code but it is
> not easy to find. :-)
If I understand well, basically the code is here, right?
http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git/tree/guix/scripts/package.scm#n754
> Ah ha! :-) Now the question is whether this is a convenient and
> efficient way to search for packages.
As an happy user of Debian, I like the aptitude way convenient and
efficient to search packages.
https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/aptitude/ch02s04s05.en.html
What do you think?
All the
Hi,
Wow! Thank you! :-)
And how the regexp works ?
I am not able to find some doc... I am diving in the code but it is
not easy to find. :-)
Well, is regexp a real regular expression?
For example, how to search package with the name emacs and not the name emacs-*?
or how to search package with
Christopher Lemmer Webber skribis:
> I'm embarassed to say I didn't know about --search :)
Ah ha! :-) Now the question is whether this is a convenient and
efficient way to search for packages.
Ludo’.
Hi,
zimoun skribis:
> How the relevance is evaluated ?
> And how the regexp works ?
Roughly relevance is computed as a function of the number of regexp
matches and the location of those matches (package name, synopsis,
description):
On 2018-12-19 07:51, swedebugia wrote:
On 2018-12-18 08:48, Catonano wrote:
Il giorno lun 17 dic 2018 alle ore 22:10 swedebugia
mailto:swedebu...@riseup.net>> ha scritto:
Hi :)
On 2018-12-17 20:01, Christopher Lemmer Webber wrote:
> Hello,
>
> In the past when we've
On 2018-12-18 08:48, Catonano wrote:
Il giorno lun 17 dic 2018 alle ore 22:10 swedebugia
mailto:swedebu...@riseup.net>> ha scritto:
Hi :)
On 2018-12-17 20:01, Christopher Lemmer Webber wrote:
> Hello,
>
> In the past when we've discussed package tagging, I think
Dear,
How the relevance is evaluated ?
And how the regexp works ?
Maybe, I miss the documentation in the manual.
I share the same feeling as Ludo about debtags.
What do you think about `aptitude search` User Interface?
https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/aptitude/ch02s04s05.en.html
Thank you in
Ludovic Courtès writes:
> I’m surprised you don’t mention --search, which is more appropriate than
> -A (‘-A’ is here only to search among package names):
>
> --8<---cut here---start->8---
> $ guix package -s roguelike | recsel -p name,relevance
> name:
Il giorno mar 18 dic 2018 alle ore 08:48 Catonano ha
scritto:
>
>
> Il giorno lun 17 dic 2018 alle ore 22:10 swedebugia
> ha scritto:
>
>> Hi :)
>>
>> On 2018-12-17 20:01, Christopher Lemmer Webber wrote:
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > In the past when we've discussed package tagging, I think Ludo' has
Hello,
Christopher Lemmer Webber skribis:
> In the past when we've discussed package tagging, I think Ludo' has been
> against it, primarily because it's a giant source of bikeshedding. I
> agree that it's a huge space for bikeshedding... no space provides more
> bikeshedding than naming
Il giorno lun 17 dic 2018 alle ore 22:10 swedebugia
ha scritto:
> Hi :)
>
> On 2018-12-17 20:01, Christopher Lemmer Webber wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > In the past when we've discussed package tagging, I think Ludo' has been
> > against it, primarily because it's a giant source of bikeshedding. I
Dear,
Does the command `guix package -s rogue` fit your needs ?
Because `--search` search in synopsis and description.
Then `ruby-multi-test` is false-positive, I guess.
And `nethack` does not show up. Maybe because the description and/or
synopsis is not verbose enough.
If `guix package -s rogue
Hi :)
On 2018-12-17 20:01, Christopher Lemmer Webber wrote:
Hello,
In the past when we've discussed package tagging, I think Ludo' has been
against it, primarily because it's a giant source of bikeshedding. I
agree that it's a huge space for bikeshedding... no space provides more
bikeshedding
Hello,
In the past when we've discussed package tagging, I think Ludo' has been
against it, primarily because it's a giant source of bikeshedding. I
agree that it's a huge space for bikeshedding... no space provides more
bikeshedding than naming things, and tagging things is a many to many
23 matches
Mail list logo
