Ricardo Wurmus writes: > Ludovic Courtès <l...@gnu.org> skribis: > >> Mark H Weaver <m...@netris.org> skribis: >> >>> FWIW, I would like to see us work to eliminate all cyclic module >>> dependencies in Guix, by splitting up our package modules as needed so >>> that they form a directed acyclic graph. >> >> This seems hard to achieve, unless we use one file per package. > > Are there drawbacks to using one file per package other than it’s a bit > “heavy” due to all the boilerplate of license headers and module > definitions?
I have two thoughts that are related to this: - languages like Perl, which have tons of modules on CPAN, a great number of which are incredibly simple and small: we are literally talking about adding 100s of files. This is quite different from adding a "program", such as Emacs, a larger, well-defined definition. I don't think the Perl example is a stopper, but perhaps something to consider in terms of performance/implementation. - If we take this direction, perhaps we should aim to have a helper commandline script to which you can pass the dependencies, and which takes care of writing the boilerplate as well as importing the appropriate modules? Alex
