Alex Kost <alez...@gmail.com> skribis: > Alex Kost (2015-12-21 15:42 +0300) wrote: > >> Fabian Harfert (2015-12-15 23:02 +0300) wrote: >> >> [...] >>> @@ -53,6 +54,7 @@ >>> #:use-module (gnu packages ghostscript) >>> #:use-module (gnu packages glib) >>> #:use-module (gnu packages gtk) >>> + #:use-module (gnu packages image) >> >> Our (gnu packages image) module uses (gnu packages maths). I wouldn't >> add this circularity, I think it was better to have xaos in a separate >> module. But actually I don't know if it's a real issue and what our >> policy on such things is. I hope more experienced guix/guile people >> will tell if we should avoid such circularities. > > Sorry for bumping, just to prevent this package from burying in ML. > > Originally Fabian sent a patch for separate "xaos.scm" file. Then > Andreas suggested to move it to "maths.scm". But this will lead to the > mentioned circularity: > (gnu packages image) already uses (gnu packages maths) > and after this patch: > (gnu packages maths) will use (gnu packages image). > > Is it OK to leave it like this, or should 'xaos' be left in a > separate file?
It’s OK to leave it as is. Module circularity are not a problem, unless there are circular *top-level* references. That is, if maths.scm does, say: (define foo libpng) and image.scm does: (define bar lapack) then we have a problem. Ludo’.
