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: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 14:09:35 +0100 Message-ID: References: <87eexeu8mo.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <87k16vdise.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:52854) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ihZ5X-0005Uc-T4 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Wed, 18 Dec 2019 08:10:05 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ihZ5W-0003Zc-Hu for bug-guix@gnu.org; Wed, 18 Dec 2019 08:10:03 -0500 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:36780) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ihZ5W-0003YX-DA for bug-guix@gnu.org; Wed, 18 Dec 2019 08:10:02 -0500 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ihZ5W-0000kx-4a for bug-guix@gnu.org; Wed, 18 Dec 2019 08:10:02 -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 Wed, 18 Dec 2019 at 10:43, Konrad Hinsen wr= ote: > > Hi Simon, > > > Maybe I miss a point. It is not: "watch out, this will do something > > else in the future" but "watch out, this was doing something else in > > the past and the change happened the in ". > > Concrete example: I am writing a tutorial about using Guix for > reproducible research. It shows several uses of "guix environment", some > of them without '=E2=80=93add-hoc' or '=E2=80=93inputs-of'. I know my exa= mples will > cease to work in a few months. What am I supposed to do about this? Assuming "guix environment" would stay and following the proposed plan, you would need to add GUIX_ENVIRONMENT_DEPRECATED=3D1 on the top of your script. In this would not be a problem for travelling back in time. > > First, I am not convinced that there is not so much scripts that will > > be broken. And second, I am not convinced neither that these very > > scripts need time-traveling. > > Perhaps it's just me, but I use "guix environment" quite a lot in > scripts, in order to make them more reproducible. Here's a simple > example: > > #!/usr/bin/env bash > guix environment --container --ad-hoc gcc-toolchain < gcc pi.c -o pi > ./pi > EOF With the proposed plan, this would stay the same. Even, the --ad-hoc option could stay forever for backward compatibility. The only issue is for example: #!/usr/bin/env bash guix environment --container gmsh < > Yes, it is probably the most adequate to do. But it is sad to loose > > the good name "guix environment"... and we know that naming is hard. > > ;-) > > I definitely agree. As a lesson for the future, maybe we should use > not-so-nice names for new commands during a kind of beta-testing phase. What do you think about "guix shell" for the new "guix environment" behavio= ur? What the others think? New name (easier) vs transitional plan (trickier)? And new names proposal: - guix env - guix shell ? All the best, simon