From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: zimoun Subject: bug#38529: Make --ad-hoc the default for guix environment proposed deprecation mechanism Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 13:03:05 +0100 Message-ID: References: <87eexeu8mo.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <87k16vdise.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:45306) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iiH0q-0004CP-2t for bug-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 07:04:09 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iiH0l-0004fm-1u for bug-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 07:04:07 -0500 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:40014) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iiH0k-0004eS-Lz for bug-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 07:04:02 -0500 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iiH0k-00011y-GA for bug-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 07:04:02 -0500 Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-Message-ID: In-Reply-To: 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" To: Konrad Hinsen Cc: Guix Devel , 38529@debbugs.gnu.org Hi Konrad, On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 at 12:24, Konrad Hinsen wrote: > The problem is scripts circulating in public repositories, tutorials, > etc. New users will find them and use them for inspiration. It's very > discouraging to see examples from tutorials fail or do something weird. As I said, I am not convinced because it lacks concrete examples. Personally, I do not know Guix ressource outside the Guix ecosystem. > The main precedent is the Python 2->3 transition. There are tons of > GitHub repositories with Python code but no indication if it's 2, 3, or > both. I even had to use one that executed with either 2 or 3, but gave > different results. It takes a lot of motivation to persist. Except that "guix environment" will raise warnings. Whatever. > For guix, there's the additional issue that we use the reproducibility > of builds as an argument. Non-reproducible examples are then a bit of a > credibility problem. I agree. I do not want to fight about "backward compatibility". As I said, talking about "guix environment", my opinion is that the cost of the change is low. However, we cannot know this cost, only probe and estimate: using my probings, I estimate the cost is low. IMHO, in this case, there is 2 ways to make a decision: - more probings to estimate more precisely; or - say: "no backward compatibility breakage" I am fine with both. :-) - I report my use-case: no cost at all - I propose the name "guix shell" However, I feel I have spent enough time and energy on this topic and I feel a blocking situation so I will move forward to another topic. :-) All the best, simon