From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Subject: bug#20255: 'search-paths' should respect both user and system profile. Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 00:04:09 +0100 Message-ID: <87h9kdy6ty.fsf@gnu.org> References: <877ftschjt.fsf@gmail.com> <87fv8fip01.fsf@gnu.org> <87d23j1bxk.fsf@gmail.com> <871tjyfnl8.fsf@gnu.org> <876199q4z1.fsf@gmail.com> <87ioca4ojo.fsf@gnu.org> <87lh9tvcws.fsf@gnu.org> <87h9kguwc4.fsf@gmail.com> <87ziy7d90z.fsf@gnu.org> <874mgfkxee.fsf@gmail.com> <87wptb5d1y.fsf@gnu.org> <87r3jisc76.fsf@gmail.com> <87lh9q1f2i.fsf@gnu.org> <877fl9q3gv.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]:56689) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a0dgx-0000Sr-UV for bug-guix@gnu.org; Sun, 22 Nov 2015 18:05:08 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a0dgs-0004sJ-UL for bug-guix@gnu.org; Sun, 22 Nov 2015 18:05:07 -0500 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:58923) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a0dgs-0004sE-R8 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Sun, 22 Nov 2015 18:05:02 -0500 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1a0dgs-00064d-HE for bug-guix@gnu.org; Sun, 22 Nov 2015 18:05:02 -0500 Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <877fl9q3gv.fsf@gmail.com> (Alex Kost's message of "Sun, 22 Nov 2015 21:44:00 +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: 20255@debbugs.gnu.org Alex Kost skribis: > Ludovic Court=C3=A8s (2015-11-22 13:52 +0300) wrote: [...] >> To me, what =E5=AE=8B=E6=96=87=E6=AD=A6 reported at the beginning of thi= s thread is a >> usability issue. We=E2=80=99ve hacked around it so far, but we know the= re are >> cases where the hacks aren=E2=80=99t enough. >> >> We could declare it as =E2=80=9Cwon=E2=80=99t fix=E2=80=9D, but I=E2=80= =99m not comfortable with that. > > No, no, I'm against =E2=80=9Cwon't fix=E2=80=9D. I don't mind if it's ca= lled a bug, and > a solution you suggest is the best, OK. > but it suits only the default case of a single user profile. If I > have several user profiles, it does nothing useful for me, only wastes > the time. I think this is fine. ~/.guix-profile is treated specially in many ways. I think users do not expect other profiles to be magically taken into account. > OK, for the bug at hand, invoking "guix package --search-paths" looks > like the only possible solution, but please don't commit this patch > without giving a user a chance to decide what to put in /etc/profile. OK. >> The solution I came up with might be inadequate. Then we need to come >> up with an alternate proposal, or to resign and mark it as =E2=80=9Cwont= fix.=E2=80=9D > > It is adequate and I'm not against it. OK. To me, that it takes 2 seconds on your machines suggests that it=E2=80= =99s not great either. >> What would you suggest? > > After all, I realized what is my main concern: "/etc/profile" is > non-editable. If I don't like some pieces of this file, I can do > nothing, and I just have to live with it and suffer. Ideally I would > like to decide what pieces I want to put in /etc/profile and what I > don't. But it's probably not possible, so=E2=80=A6 > > =E2=80=A6 what I suggest now is just to give an option to avoid generatin= g the > default /etc/profile. What about making an 'operating-system' field for > this file (similar to 'sudoers-file' or 'hosts-file')? So when such > 'profile-file' is specified, it will be used instead of the default one > (of course, it should be mentioned in the manual that it's only for > those users who are sure what they do). I think we could make an /etc/profile-service that receives snippets meant to be glued together into the final /etc/profile. Users could specify the top or bottom of the file. There could be a combined-search-paths-service that implements the solution I proposed here. WDYT? > If this 'profile-file' field appears, I will gladly use it, and I will > not object to any future changes in /etc/profile. Of course we want to offer this flexibility. But I think it=E2=80=99s also important to discuss the defaults, to make sure they are acceptable to many and that they improve the =E2=80=9Cuser experience.=E2=80=9D Thanks, Ludo=E2=80=99.