<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <updated>2026-10-25T23:52:39Z</updated>
  <generator>https://nostr.now</generator>

  <title>Nostr notes by Simon Tournier</title>
  <author>
    <name>Simon Tournier</name>
  </author>
  <link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="https://nostr.now/npub1epyahyq7kewv4d5g75ju90k24vauuhxw8h4pvay39uptum9uw55sl2hv3y.rss" />
  <link href="https://nostr.now/npub1epyahyq7kewv4d5g75ju90k24vauuhxw8h4pvay39uptum9uw55sl2hv3y" />
  <id>https://nostr.now/npub1epyahyq7kewv4d5g75ju90k24vauuhxw8h4pvay39uptum9uw55sl2hv3y</id>
  <icon>https://social.sciences.re/system/accounts/avatars/111/818/081/465/161/938/original/310db2e0263746c6.png</icon>
  <logo>https://social.sciences.re/system/accounts/avatars/111/818/081/465/161/938/original/310db2e0263746c6.png</logo>




  <entry>
    <id>https://nostr.now/nevent1qqsgxln62mhanq382j45r3xex6tjqxdnpc6dp9mvlemkjg6c9eexeaqzyryynkusr6m9ej4k3r6jts47e24nhnjuec7759n5jyhs90nvh36jj3wf08a</id>
    
      <title type="html">Hi @npub124t…2ca5 « Package Managers à la Carte – A Formal ...</title>
    
    <link rel="alternate" href="https://nostr.now/nevent1qqsgxln62mhanq382j45r3xex6tjqxdnpc6dp9mvlemkjg6c9eexeaqzyryynkusr6m9ej4k3r6jts47e24nhnjuec7759n5jyhs90nvh36jj3wf08a" />
    <content type="html">
      Hi &lt;span itemprop=&#34;mentions&#34; itemscope itemtype=&#34;https://schema.org/Person&#34;&gt;&lt;a itemprop=&#34;url&#34; href=&#34;/npub124tq660z34cuyuth8rlwwj4y38s9ykfn2s3af52dhkx4ygpkxvpsg32ca5&#34; class=&#34;bg-lavender dark:prose:text-neutral-50 dark:text-neutral-50 dark:bg-garnet px-1&#34;&gt;&lt;span&gt;ryan&lt;/span&gt; (&lt;span class=&#34;italic&#34;&gt;npub124t…2ca5&lt;/span&gt;)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;« Package Managers à la Carte – A Formal Model of Dependency Resolution »&lt;br/&gt;&lt;a href=&#34;https://doi.org/10.1145/3828699&#34;&gt;https://doi.org/10.1145/3828699&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Cool, very nice and great paper! Well, to be honest, I’m not able to parse all in this paper; it’ll deserve a huge mug of coffee and some free time ahead. So maybe my question is already answered. 😁&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;🤔 What I’m missing is the definition of “package” and “version”.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;2.1.1 « A package is a unit of software – source code, a compiled binary, or data – […] Packages are identified by a name, which refers to a package across its releases, and a version, distinguishing one release from another. »&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;The exact same source code – the exact same “name” and “version” – can produce two different compiled binaries depending on the compilation options for instance.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;What seems lacking in this “Package Calculus“ is thus a third item defining a &amp;#34;package”: the “build script“, no?&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Either it’s included in the “version” but the ordering seems lost, either the “Package Calculus“ would need to be updated, no?&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Appendix D “Singular Dependencies” speaks about Nix/Guix. And from my understanding, that’s the point of this approach: define a “package” as a “name”, a “version” (= source code release) and a “build script”, no?
    </content>
    <updated>2026-09-24T18:03:02Z</updated>
  </entry>

</feed>