<Necrosporus>as far as I know Tcl is as powerful as Scheme but is easier to read and has more gentle learning curve
<taylanub>Necrosporus: Scheme is a very nicely designed language which is both very high-level and doesn't go overboard with "user-friendliness" thus can be compiled to very efficient code. s-expression syntax coupled with hygienic macros allow writing very neat EDSLs. there's probably a couple more points. and in the end, if we assumed they're equi-powerful, then the fact that we've went with Scheme so
<taylanub>far is enough justification to continue with it, since a switch would be extremely costly.
<jmd>I think the learning curve is about the same.
<taylanub>ease of reading and learning curve are subjective; it could be said that scheme assumes its users to be willing to learn many new powerful ideas, instead of shoehorning them into widely known coding patterns, somewhat akin to Emacs for example.
<Necrosporus>jmd, it's 20 years long, languages evolved a lot since then
<Necrosporus>Also your paper says that building rpm and deb packages in not reproduciable, though I read about building ubuntu packages, there is a tool which creates a chroot environment for each package for building deb
<Steap_>Funnily, I know neither Nix nor Guile, and Guix recipes seemed easier to read
<DusXMT>Necrosporus: Guix/Nix go way deeper into the problem of reproducibility, and yet they still can-t produce 100% bit-reproducible executables, althought that's being worked on
<ArneBab>davexunit: I did not expect that, but guix environment provides a solution to a deep seated problem for distributed development: A program requires multiple tools with multiple build systems to work. It allows saying “just use this environment to build” without having to resort to describing the way to set it up for multiple distributions.
<roptat_>I compiled xfce4-terminal with its dependencies (vte, xfconf, libxfce4util and libxfce4ui). Do you prefer one big patch or one patch for each of them?
<jmd>What's the difference between inputs and %build-inputs ?
<bavier`>jmd: I believe %build-inputs is a special build-side variable that lists all the inputs. In most cases it should hold the same thing as the "inputs" keyword argument.
<bavier`>roptat_: please send separate patches for each new package; it makes reviewing them easier.
<jmd>bavier`: Yeah. I found a case where they didn't. That's why I asked.
<bavier`>jmd: guix/build-system/gnu.scm:238 might be the place to look.
<roptat_>There is a package with a COPYING file that contains the GPL2 license, but its source code says LGPL2 only. What is the license of this package?
<DusXMT>roptat: It's GPL2. This happens most commonly in cases where the project uses GPL'ed libraries. The project itself then has to be licensed, as a whole, under the GPL
<DusXMT>But thinking about it... the whole point of the LGPL is to allow programs of non-GPL-compatible licenses to use the library, which putting the entire thing under the GPL completely defeats the purpose...