Hi, I had missed that message.
Konrad Hinsen <konrad.hin...@fastmail.net> skribis: > Ludovic Courtès <l...@gnu.org> writes: > >> Another thing that comes to mind: would it make sense to mention ‘guix >> graph’ in the part where you pipe the output of ‘guix show’ to ‘recsel’, >> etc.? > > Forgot that one, sorry. Yes, it would make sense, though I'd place it a > bit later in the text. But I'd have to figure out first how how the > various options of "guix graph" relate exactly to what I am writing. > > ‘package’ > This is the default type used in the example above. It shows the > DAG of package objects, excluding implicit dependencies. It is > concise, but filters out many details. > > Are "implicit dependencies" those added by the build system? If yes, > this edges in this graph would correspond to package-direct-inputs. Exactly. > ‘bag’ > Similar to ‘bag-emerged’, but this time including all the bootstrap > dependencies. > > And that is package-closure with arrows defined by bag-direct-inputs, right? Yes. Thanks, Ludo’.
