From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Subject: bug#22587: =?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=98guix_?= =?UTF-8?Q?edit=E2=80=99?= & =?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=98M-x?= guix-edit' typo, rename, & mode change Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2016 16:30:39 +0100 Message-ID: <878u2vfcdc.fsf@gnu.org> References: <8737t4jt1j.fsf@gmail.com> <87oabrr460.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:40200) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aSqWi-0004sS-3Z for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 08 Feb 2016 13:27:09 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aSqWe-0004FZ-3b for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 08 Feb 2016 13:27:08 -0500 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:51288) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aSqWe-0004FU-03 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 08 Feb 2016 13:27:04 -0500 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1aSqWd-00015u-Tw for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 08 Feb 2016 13:27:03 -0500 Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <87oabrr460.fsf@gmail.com> (Alex Kost's message of "Mon, 08 Feb 2016 11:34:47 +0300") List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Alex Kost Cc: 22587@debbugs.gnu.org, myglc2 Alex Kost skribis: > myglc2 (2016-02-07 21:04 +0300) wrote: [...] >> Calling these functions 'guix edit' and 'M-x guix-edit' implies that the >> user will be able to modify the recipe, but this is not actually the >> case. The functions should be given a more informative and accurate >> name, such as: 'guix view', 'guix inspect', or 'guix examine'. > > Along with the package recipes that come with Guix, a user can also have > his/her own packages (specified using GUIX_PACKAGE_PATH env var), and > "guix edit my-super-package" opens a user's file with this package. It > is highly likely that this file is editable, so "guix edit" is a perfect > name in this case I think. IMO it's a user responsibility to understand > what files can be edited and what cannot. I sympathize with the frustration of myglc2, but I agree with you Alex. > But I agree that this may be confusing, so maybe we should clarify the > manual to explain in (info "(guix) Invoking guix edit") that store files > must not be edited. Yes. Can one of you propose a way to phrase it? I also had in mind that =E2=80=98someday=E2=80=99 we could have: guix edit --clone foo which would automatically open, say, ~/.config/guix/personal/packages.scm with a template like: (define-module (personal packages) #:use-module (guix packages) #:use-module (gnu packages foo)) (define-public my-foo (package (inherit foo) (name "foo-personal"))) It=E2=80=99s a bit of work, but it=E2=80=99d be nice. Ludo=E2=80=99.