recursive import does not dort alphabetically

In most gnu/packages/*.scm files are (expected to be) sorted alphabetically.

Now when importing some packages recursivly, packages are output in

order of the dependency graph, thus authors need to sort them manually.

Example (requires the hex.pm importer from

http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=42180:

$ ./pre-inst-env guix import hexpm -r idna | grep define-public

(define-public erlang-unicode-util-compat

(define-public erlang-idna

$ ./pre-inst-env guix import hexpm -r idna | grep define-public |

LC_ALL=C sort --check

sort: -:2: disorder: (define-public erlang-idna

--

Regards

Hartmut Goebel

| Hartmut Goebel | h.goebel@crazy-compilers.com |

| www.crazy-compilers.com | compilers which you thought are impossible |

Dear,

On Thu, 09 Jul 2020 at 09:53, Hartmut Goebel <h.goebel@crazy-compilers.com> wrote:

Do you mean the package definitions in gnu/packages/foo.scm?

Because they are generally not alphabetically sorted. Well, it really

depends on which module, from what I see.

All the best,

simon

Am 09.07.20 um 11:36 schrieb zimoun:

Yes.

Most file I've been working on ask for sorting alphabetically. (And IMHO

this is a good recommendation to follow.)

--

Regards

Hartmut Goebel

| Hartmut Goebel | h.goebel@crazy-compilers.com |

| www.crazy-compilers.com | compilers which you thought are impossible |

On Thu, 9 Jul 2020 at 13:26, Hartmut Goebel

<h.goebel@crazy-compilers.com> wrote:

Well, I get:

295 gnu/packages/unsorted-file.scm

204 gnu/packages/sorted-file.scm

And the top 10 bigger files are unsorted:

BTW, I agree that alphabetical sorting is a good recommendation.

All the best,

simon

On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 01:26:03PM +0200, Hartmut Goebel wrote:

What are the benefits of sorting packages?

The ordering of packages is not usually important to the machine, and

humans can search for the package names.

I think that sorting the packages is not necessarily desired, especially

for modules where a lot of packages may be imported (e.g. Rust). It

makes the Git diffs harder to understand and work with when merging or

rebasing, compared to just adding the new packages at the end of the

file.

In cases where packages are inherited to create multiple package

versions, alphanumerical sorting breaks the inheritance [0], although

inheritance is problematic in its own right and we should probably stop

using it.

[0] See https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2020-04/msg00040.html

Am 09.07.20 um 19:39 schrieb Leo Famulari:

Many modules are sorted and some packages even contain a comment asking

for being sorted. So I had the impression this is good practice.

Also scanning through the file is easier for humans if packages are

sorted - depends on personal work style.

--

Regards

Hartmut Goebel

| Hartmut Goebel | h.goebel@crazy-compilers.com |

| www.crazy-compilers.com | compilers which you thought are impossible |

Dear Hartmut,

On Wed, 15 Jul 2020 at 21:10, Hartmut Goebel <h.goebel@crazy-compilers.com> wrote

I am not sure by the "many". :-)

Even gnu/packages/crate-io.scm which explicitly asks:

;;; Please: Try to add new module packages in alphabetic order.

and it is not really sorted. :-)

cat crates-io.scm | grep 'define-public' | sort --check

sort: -:6: disorder: (define-public rust-afl-0.5

It appears to me as a "good practise" too. On the other hand,

personally I always scan the packages with "ag" (inside Emacs).

However, it is not the point since your initial request is about

alphabetical sort of "guix import"; which seems better than arbitrary

order (dependency order). Whatever if gnu/packages/foo.scm is sorted or

not.

If "guix import" returns an alphanumerical sorted list, it is easier and

it does not bother the unsorted modules since the packages are new.

All the best,

simon

Le 16 juillet 2020 07:35:23 GMT-04:00, zimoun <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> a écrit :

The advantage of dependency-sorting is that it makes it easier to add packages one by one without breaking anything. If they are alphabetically sorted, which package do you add first? What if the first one depends on another imported package? Your first commit will be broken because of a reference to an unexisting package.

On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 09:10:45PM +0200, Hartmut Goebel wrote:

To clarify, I don't think that sorting packages alphanumerically is bad

or good. It's largely a matter of taste, and I don't think we need to

make a policy either way.

Hi Hartmut,

On jeu., 09 juil. 2020 at 09:53, Hartmut Goebel <h.goebel@crazy-compilers.com> wrote:

While I agree with this recommendation to sort alphabetically

gnu/packages/*.scm...

...I think it is not a good idea to sort alphabetically the output of

the importers, because:

1. the packages have to be added dependency-sorted,

2. since each imported package is not alphabetically adjacent in the

larger collection of already available packages, the user still needs

to find the correct location.

Therefore, I am in favor to close this issue as wontfix notabug. WDYT?

Cheers,

simon