On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 22:22:29 +0800, Efraim Flashner wrote: > > > > > Would it be easier to have 1 package per module, as in just the cargo > > > > inputs for zoxide in gnu/packages/rust-crates/zoxide.scm, and then you > > > > wouldn't need to worry about removing variables that aren't used by > > > > zoxide anymore but are used by another package? > > > > > > I agree with Efraim here. My initial thoughts were to have one package per > > > module not only because its easier to do, but also because it avoids any > > > merge/rebase conflicts with other packages/patches. > > > > Nice point! We can split change to one package into two commits: > > 1. Automated work (crates addition and deletion) > > 2. Manual work (crates modification, package definiton) > > > > When submitting a patch series, 1 is for CI/QA purpose. Committers are > > responsible for recreating the change following documented workflow and only > > apply 2. > > I think I'd prefer one commit. > > * gnu: foo: Update to x.y.z. > > * gnu/packages/bar.scm (foo): Update to x.y.z. > * gnu/packages/rust-crates/bar.scm (foo-cargo-inputs): Update cargo > inputs. > > Not sure about enumerating all the changes per crate source.
One concern I have on multiple modules is the duplication of efforts in unbundling and checking.
