[PATCH 0/1] Add org-roam-extensions package

OpenSubmitted by Collin J. Doering.
Details
3 participants
  • Adolfo De Unánue
  • Collin J. Doering
  • zimoun
Owner
unassigned
Severity
normal
C
C
Collin J. Doering wrote on 4 Sep 18:12 +0200
(address . guix-patches@gnu.org)
8735qk9v2x.fsf@rekahsoft.ca
Instead of the implementation put forth inhttps://issues.guix.gnu.org/50333this change includes org-roamextensions as a separate package.
Collin J. Doering (1): gnu: Add emacs-org-roam-extensions
gnu/packages/emacs-xyz.scm | 19 +++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+)
-- 2.33.0

-- Collin J. Doering
http://rekahsoft.cahttp://blog.rekahsoft.cahttp://git.rekahsoft.ca
C
C
Collin J. Doering wrote on 4 Sep 18:19 +0200
[PATCH 1/1] gnu: Add emacs-org-roam-extensions
(address . 50374@debbugs.gnu.org)
87y28c8g8o.fsf@rekahsoft.ca
--- gnu/packages/emacs-xyz.scm | 19 +++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+)
Toggle diff (40 lines)diff --git a/gnu/packages/emacs-xyz.scm b/gnu/packages/emacs-xyz.scmindex f04a0225b3..830c642492 100644--- a/gnu/packages/emacs-xyz.scm+++ b/gnu/packages/emacs-xyz.scm@@ -28264,6 +28264,25 @@ as a plug-and-play solution for anyone already using Org mode for their personal wiki.") (license license:gpl3+))) +(define-public emacs-org-roam-extensions+ (package+ (inherit emacs-org-roam)+ (name "emacs-org-roam-extensions")+ (propagated-inputs+ `(,@(package-propagated-inputs emacs-org-roam)+ ("emacs-org-roam" ,emacs-org-roam)))+ (arguments+ `(#:phases+ (modify-phases %standard-phases+ (add-after 'unpack 'enter-subdirectory+ (lambda _ (chdir "extensions") #t))+ (add-before 'install-license-files 'leave-subdirectory+ (lambda _ (chdir "..") #t)))))+ (synopsis "Extensions for Org-Roam")+ (description "Emacs Org Roam Extensions include utilities for daily note+taking, the org-roam protocol, graphing note relationships and providing id link+overlays.")))+ (define-public emacs-org-roam-bibtex (package (name "emacs-org-roam-bibtex")-- 2.33.0

-- Collin J. Doering
http://rekahsoft.cahttp://blog.rekahsoft.cahttp://git.rekahsoft.ca
A
A
Adolfo De Unánue wrote on 12 Sep 18:19 +0200
(no subject)
(address . 50374@debbugs.gnu.org)
875yv5sr0z.fsf@unanue.mx
Hi
I am the author of the patch https://issues.guix.gnu.org/50333(my firstpatch, so I am a newbie on this).
Could you help me to understand why your proposal is a better solution?I want to learn how to approach to this matters in the future.
My rationale is that the extensions folder *is* part of org-roam, that'swhy I *added* them to the original package.
Also, Do we need to do something in order to get this patch (or mine)approved?(again, just asking because this workflow is new for me)
Thanks in advance for your time
--- A
Z
Z
zimoun wrote on 14 Sep 14:30 +0200
Re: [bug#50374] [PATCH 0/1] Add org-roam-extensions package
(name . Collin J. Doering)(address . collin@rekahsoft.ca)(address . 50374@debbugs.gnu.org)
86fsu7tk4v.fsf@gmail.com
Hi,
On Sat, 04 Sep 2021 at 12:12, "Collin J. Doering" <collin@rekahsoft.ca> wrote:
Toggle quote (4 lines)> Instead of the implementation put forth in> https://issues.guix.gnu.org/50333 this change includes org-roam> extensions as a separate package.
Naive question, why should the extensions be distributed as a separatepackage? Well, I am not an Org-Roam user… having the extensions alongwith the package emacs-org-roam seem the best; other said, why anOrg-Roam user would be annoyed to have these extensions and not usethem?
All the best,simon
C
C
Collin J. Doering wrote on 16 Sep 15:38 +0200
Re: [bug#50374] (no subject)
(name . Adolfo De Unánue)(address . adolfo@unanue.mx)
871r5ohbxj.fsf@rekahsoft.ca
Hi Adolfo,
I am not a guix expert either and am relatively new to the project. Iactually asked about this topic on guix IRC, where folks there suggestedsplitting it into another package. I see very little difference betweenincluding the org-roam-extensions as a separate package output, or as astandalone package. I feel that having it as an additional output ismore "pure", but found that many packages already use a standalonepackage for extensions, and I found that doing it in this way made bothpackages themselves easier to define. You can see this for yourself witha query like this `guix package -s '.*-extensions$' | recsel -CP name`.
Hope this helps, and kind regards!
On 12 Sep 2021 at 11:19, Adolfo De Unánue <adolfo@unanue.mx> wrote:
Toggle quote (18 lines)> Hi>> I am the author of the patch https://issues.guix.gnu.org/50333 (my first> patch, so I am a newbie on this).>> Could you help me to understand why your proposal is a better solution?> I want to learn how to approach to this matters in the future.>> My rationale is that the extensions folder *is* part of org-roam, that's> why I *added* them to the original package.>> Also, Do we need to do something in order to get this patch (or mine)> approved?> (again, just asking because this workflow is new for me)>> Thanks in advance for your time

C
C
Collin J. Doering wrote on 16 Sep 15:48 +0200
Re: [bug#50374] [PATCH 0/1] Add org-roam-extensions package
(name . zimoun)(address . zimon.toutoune@gmail.com)(address . 50374@debbugs.gnu.org)
87wnngfwv9.fsf@rekahsoft.ca
Hi Zimoun,
Thanks for taking the time to look at this patch.
On 14 Sep 2021 at 14:30, zimoun <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> wrote:
Toggle quote (10 lines)> Hi,>> On Sat, 04 Sep 2021 at 12:12, "Collin J. Doering" <collin@rekahsoft.ca> wrote:>> Instead of the implementation put forth in>> https://issues.guix.gnu.org/50333 this change includes org-roam>> extensions as a separate package.>> Naive question, why should the extensions be distributed as a separate> package?
They are not required for the use of org-roam. They could also bedistributed as an additional output on the org-roam package itself.Happy to re-adjust if that's preferred.
Toggle quote (4 lines)> Well, I am not an Org-Roam user… having the extensions along with the> package emacs-org-roam seem the best; other said, why an Org-Roam user> would be annoyed to have these extensions and not use them?
I don't think they need to be included directly in the main output ofthe emacs-org-roam package as not all org-roam users will leverage them.However I can't think of any reasons why a org-roam user would beannoyed that they are included (other then including software that isnot used, which is not necessarily favorable).
Please let me know your preference between the following:
1. org-roam extensions as part of a separate package (this is what isalready presented in this patch set). 2. Extensions as a separate `extensions` output on the emacs-org-roam package3. Build the extensions directly into the primary output of theemacs-org-roam package (this is already done in https://issues.guix.gnu.org/50333)
Toggle quote (2 lines)> All the best,
?
Your comment

Commenting via the web interface is currently disabled.

To comment on this conversation send email to 50374@debbugs.gnu.org