Leo Famulari <l...@famulari.name> writes: > On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 05:17:15PM -0600, Eric Bavier wrote: >> On Mon, 28 Dec 2015 18:09:09 -0500 >> Leo Famulari <l...@famulari.name> wrote: >> >> > I think it would be better for this software synthesizer to be in >> > music.scm. >> > >> > Thoughts? >> >> IIRC, the original thought was that many GNU packages have their own >> modules, so this was done for cursynth as well. > > Okay, sure.
I think it would be nice to have cursynth in “music.scm”. I wasn’t fully aware of its existence, and I’m at home in “audio.scm” and “music.scm” :) > To be honest, I don't understand the reasoning behind grouping packages > into modules. Is it just for humans or is there some technical reason > for it? It’s mostly for humans AFAIU. Personally, I prefer try to avoid a proliferation of one-off modules; maybe because I don’t like the boilerplate (license header, module definition with imports, adding the module to “gnu-system.am”). Grouping packages in modules also allows user interfaces like guix-web to narrow results to just a single module. For example, searching for “bioinfo” in guix-web shows me everything from the “bioinformatics.scm” module, even though not all packages there contain the string “bioinfo” in their synopsis/description. ~~ Ricardo
