From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andreas Enge <andreas@enge.fr>
Subject: Re: Odd behavior with --dry-run and --upgrade
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2016 09:46:00 +0200
Message-ID: <20160725074600.GB1611@solar>
References: <87y44sqtiw.fsf@gnu.org> <87h9bfcteu.fsf@gmail.com>
	<87y44q8yta.fsf@gnu.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Return-path: <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59338)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <andreas@enge.fr>) id 1bRaaY-0001XZ-3O
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 25 Jul 2016 03:46:11 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <andreas@enge.fr>) id 1bRaaT-0003aV-VM
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 25 Jul 2016 03:46:09 -0400
Received: from mailrelay2.public.one.com ([91.198.169.125]:17244)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <andreas@enge.fr>) id 1bRaaT-0003aE-IX
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 25 Jul 2016 03:46:05 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87y44q8yta.fsf@gnu.org>
List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution."
	<guix-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: "Guix-devel" <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
To: Ludovic =?iso-8859-15?Q?Court=E8s?= <ludo@gnu.org>
Cc: guix-devel <guix-devel@gnu.org>, Alex Kost <alezost@gmail.com>

On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 12:18:41AM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> > I'm totally agree with this; nowadays I always use --dry-run with
> > --no-grafts option.
> Same here…
> > As a user I expect that --dry-run means no building at all.
> But honestly, I think changing ‘--dry-run’ to do ‘--dry-run --no-grafts’
> would be fine, and probably better than the current situation.

Yes, this is what I would expect. We could also have a "--dry-run --grafts"
option if anybody complains about the missing feature.

Andreas