From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp1 ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms11 with LMTPS id eM9sAL3NY1+3AgAA0tVLHw (envelope-from ) for ; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 20:57:33 +0000 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp1 with LMTPS id QCnSN7zNY1+ZPgAAbx9fmQ (envelope-from ) for ; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 20:57:32 +0000 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 20B1894053F for ; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 20:57:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:51680 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kJ0y9-00017r-Di for larch@yhetil.org; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 16:57:29 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:59740) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kJ01e-00048Y-CM for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 15:57:02 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:55864) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kJ01e-00066t-0x for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 15:57:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kJ01d-0007Ai-Vl for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 15:57:01 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#42688: Running a script with `guix repl` doesn't "see" additional channels using (%package-module-path) Resent-From: Leo Prikler Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-guix@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2020 19:57:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 42688 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Received: via spool by 42688-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B42688.160037259727537 (code B ref 42688); Thu, 17 Sep 2020 19:57:01 +0000 Received: (at 42688) by debbugs.gnu.org; 17 Sep 2020 19:56:37 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39177 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kJ01F-0007A5-Bd for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 15:56:37 -0400 Received: from mailrelay.tugraz.at ([129.27.2.202]:28634) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kJ01C-00079u-BI for 42688@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 15:56:36 -0400 Received: from nijino.local (217-149-165-169.nat.highway.telekom.at [217.149.165.169]) by mailrelay.tugraz.at (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4Bsnly5WpCz1DVPN; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 21:56:30 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mailrelay.tugraz.at 4Bsnly5WpCz1DVPN DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tugraz.at; s=mailrelay; t=1600372590; bh=XdSATCzyGnQKTtpVboZXsmQE5vKwMVkbfqC+kcxf6UA=; h=Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=vQtJZ/8uKDO+kraTBFekCnnxIvnJOPn0kPkrEEL/0VZwWnfWy2TDs8x95VGt3tafL S9EWw+tc02/z1TaRjW5ZWmn6fnYuDlik5I72JYFmCJutiicOdnPKoVjBRZ51zuTYMc XSnaWc0lmgwBKO52EaBtyWVvWwbqv7lzn7bRTD3E= Message-ID: <277bbd8c36ab16b4bc2abb50a6e75f6adeaeb183.camel@student.tugraz.at> From: Leo Prikler Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2020 21:56:52 +0200 In-Reply-To: <877dss9q2q.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20200803043331.78b20336@runbox.com> <874knws9mu.fsf@gnu.org> <34cc318a15bd8070d0863214864687c0d45a414c.camel@student.tugraz.at> <877dss9q2q.fsf@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" User-Agent: Evolution 3.34.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-TUG-Backscatter-control: bt4lQm5Tva3SBgCuw0EnZw X-Spam-Scanner: SpamAssassin 3.003001 X-Spam-Score-relay: -1.9 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.74 on 129.27.10.117 X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 17 Sep 2020 16:57:06 -0400 X-BeenThere: bug-guix@gnu.org List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: 42688@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "bug-Guix" X-Scanner: scn0 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=fail (rsa verify failed) header.d=tugraz.at header.s=mailrelay header.b=vQtJZ/8u; dmarc=fail reason="SPF not aligned (relaxed)" header.from=student.tugraz.at (policy=none); spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of bug-guix-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=bug-guix-bounces@gnu.org X-Spam-Score: 0.09 X-TUID: +J4gXVDooCwi Hi, Am Donnerstag, den 17.09.2020, 21:10 +0200 schrieb Ludovic Courtès: > Hi, > > Leo Prikler skribis: > > > Am Donnerstag, den 17.09.2020, 17:31 +0200 schrieb Ludovic Courtès: > > > Hi Leo, > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > ‘scm_program_arguments_fluid’ is marked as SCM_INTERNAL, so it’s > > > really > > > inaccessible. > > Thought so. > > > > > However, perhaps we could save the initial value of (program- > > > arguments) > > > in (guix ui) and use that in (guix describe)? > > I'd personally put it in (guix describe) and use the same autoload > > trick, that you've now used for %package-module-path (or a > > dedicated > > save-...-excursion). > > In general, (guix …) module should not depend on (gnu …) modules, > which > rules out this option. Sure, but program-arguments are not defined in (gnu …) and it is a (guix scripts …) that eventually pulls in %package-module-path. Therefore defining %guix-initial-program-arguments (or whatever it will be called in the end) in (guix describe) still seems like an option to me. > > (guix ui) has a heavy closure for (guix describe) to pull. > > Every (guix scripts …) module depends on (guix ui) via the ‘guix’ > command. (Probably something we could improve, but that’s the way it > is.) > > Now, I realize my proposal was misguided because (guix describe) > should > remain “UI-free” so to speak. Hmm… With that however, I am no longer so sure. The initial program arguments are part of the UI, but at the same time, that would make it not UI-free to begin with. Kinda strengthens the argument, that it should be made a fluid/parameter/what have you, that gets initialized with program-arguments at some point. Regards, Leo