From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pjotr Prins Subject: Re: Warning on using GUIX_PACKAGE_PATH Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2017 21:14:03 +0000 Message-ID: <20170209211403.GA26346@mail.thebird.nl> References: <20170209133048.GA23419@mail.thebird.nl> <20170209140835.GA30957@jocasta.intra> <20170209165022.6nt6lefzbr6rspbg@wasp> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:50864) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cbw5i-0004lu-9M for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 09 Feb 2017 16:17:23 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cbw5e-0000Fg-7h for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 09 Feb 2017 16:17:22 -0500 Received: from mail.thebird.nl ([95.154.246.10]:37156) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cbw5e-0000FP-1O for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 09 Feb 2017 16:17:18 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170209165022.6nt6lefzbr6rspbg@wasp> 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: John Darrington , Pjotr Prins , guix-devel@gnu.org On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 04:50:23PM +0000, ng0 wrote: > On 17-02-09 15:08:35, John Darrington wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 01:30:48PM +0000, Pjotr Prins wrote: > > @FOSDEM we concluded that GUIX_PACKAGE_PATH does not necessarily work > > that wel. I added to my guix-notes the following: > > > > +Note that, even though GUIX_PACKAGE_PATH can be a feasible way of > > +adding and maintaining packages, it has two largish downsides: (1) it > > +is removed from the main package tree and therefore not easily shared > > +and integrated and (2) to remain compatible you need to juggle two git > > +trees which may go out of synch. > > > > > > Those are indeed cavaets. But whether they are "downsides" or "largish" is > > a matter for individual users to decide. > > > > Some people 1) don't want to share the pacakges they create; and/or 2) are > > prepared to accept the effort keeping the two things in sync. > > > > J' > > There's a third case: packages which can simply be "as they are" and > knowing they will not end up in upstream master tree. > It is easier for me to maintain and experiment with what's the best way > to provide multiple packages of development versions which depend on > each other in a guix-package-path, rather than maintain yet another > branch or yet another full blown guix master repository. Just to be clear - I agree with both your statements. I merely mean to warn people that read my notes on the effect of such a choice. It is something I learnt the hard way. I will still use GUIX_PACKAGE_PATH until we get channels. That mystical solution that will solve all my problems ;) Same for 'guix pull'. It is merely a warning. Pj.