From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: John Darrington Subject: Re: Reorganizing guix package commands Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 18:10:56 +0200 Message-ID: <20160418161056.GA30756@jocasta.intra> References: <874mazi99k.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="a8Wt8u1KmwUX3Y2C" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59291) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1asBlZ-0001za-5H for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 18 Apr 2016 12:11:17 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1asBlV-0006zV-Sh for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 18 Apr 2016 12:11:13 -0400 Received: from de.cellform.com ([88.217.224.109]:48536 helo=jocasta.intra) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1asBlV-0006vt-Ku for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 18 Apr 2016 12:11:09 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <874mazi99k.fsf@gmail.com> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Alex Kost Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org --a8Wt8u1KmwUX3Y2C Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 11:57:59AM +0300, Alex Kost wrote: I've just sent a message to bug#22587??, but I realized it is better to discuss it here in a separate thread. =20 So, I think there are inconsistencies in guix commands. For example, = we have "guix system build" to build a system, but "guix build" to build a package. IMO "guix package build" would be a better choice. =20 In general, I think it would be good to move package commands inside "guix package", e.g, to make "guix package lint", "guix package size", etc. I'm not saying that you're wrong. But I think the idea is that guix build is a command for development, whereas guix package is a command for users. I think the two need to be kept separate. Wouldn't it be great to make some breaking changes? I mean if this or any other proposal on "guix" command structure is reasonable, I think it's just the time for it while Guix is still alpha/beta. Otherwise, the current command structure will never be changed. I wouldn't mind seeing a few of the more recent commands as options to=20 (a possibly renamed) guix build. For example it seems to me that guix environment is specific to a package so perhaps that is a good candidate. But I don't know. Maybe it's still too early to make changes. If such changes are to be made, then we should get them right. J' =20 --=20 Avoid eavesdropping. Send strong encryted email. PGP Public key ID: 1024D/2DE827B3=20 fingerprint =3D 8797 A26D 0854 2EAB 0285 A290 8A67 719C 2DE8 27B3 See http://sks-keyservers.net or any PGP keyserver for public key. --a8Wt8u1KmwUX3Y2C Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iEYEARECAAYFAlcVBxAACgkQimdxnC3oJ7MXxQCeNIwdzfyKp6rYDQJC/5j5fGyX SZkAnjoz73HOo8kX3u/m0ZWB86WOHCRY =4bLt -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --a8Wt8u1KmwUX3Y2C--