On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 08:08:49AM +0100, Ricardo Wurmus wrote: > > 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”).
I agree about the boilerplate but I am wondering, is there a tool to get the list of modules imported for a particular package? > > 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 >
