Alex Vong writes:
> n...@n0.is writes: > >> names for packages are (mostly) random, although in some >> cases following classiifcations (see python-*, r-*, ...). >> > I am thinking that should we rename qtoctave to octave and octave to > octave-cli (or octave-minimal)? > > Firstly, a new user wanting to install octave will probably do the > obvious "guix package -i octave", but currently this command will do the > counter-intuitive thing of installing the non-gui version of > octave. Instead, they will have to install qtoctave to get the gui. I am > in favour of making a package to support as many features as possible, > while also making a minimal version for building other packages (or > users who desn't want a gui). An example would be emacs vs > emacs-minimal. > > Secondly, I suggest to name the minimal version as "octave-cli" because > this is what the octave binary (the command-line only version) is > called. Also, running "guix package -A '-cli$'" shows some of the > existing packages also follow similar naming convention (I don't know it > they have a corresponding gui version though). > > What do others think? > > Cheers, > Alex I am in favor of this idea: Octave && Octave Minimal Brett
