From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp2 ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms11 with LMTPS id IcGnIEvR6F4JEQAA0tVLHw (envelope-from ) for ; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 14:03:55 +0000 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp2 with LMTPS id KJRUHEvR6F4ifQAAB5/wlQ (envelope-from ) for ; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 14:03:55 +0000 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8005F9403E9 for ; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 14:03:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:60192 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jlCBt-0001Mi-89 for larch@yhetil.org; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 10:03:53 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:54398) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jlCBb-0001MM-WD for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 10:03:36 -0400 Received: from mail-qk1-x72c.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::72c]:38984) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jlCBF-0004B2-W7; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 10:03:35 -0400 Received: by mail-qk1-x72c.google.com with SMTP id w3so19193804qkb.6; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 07:03:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=references:user-agent:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:date :message-id:mime-version; bh=EWGODmlhGyxv2BVvFldIL9NvGjLLmFoizq7zQe7L+LY=; b=uIRqyADgYIVm1DX9Z9yAhPrrMs753Seh3ZgLYvjIJfLvyyrJjk9M24hLDedTrou+NP V+x4D6oCWhI8rog5DmCxQiPvevAlZdP+N4+w1sU+LH69PZ8VsXzBQlJBiSxI6KNecUMj Do2XIwenSfeS5y+WaGaa4D4kE8ciHLGg8bUBhy2fMso39FbwmFlkRVex4r72htrP+l7f K05fUD+jy2FnaLY+TeSD6GR9BwdujDFZka2hhBEHM59zjicanKn9EvtyShrF4+mtqN8T mcevItNC7hcvrwAvAboV1dOSJRy+T+Bkgv0VNc0d5BgATipMuOSWCKwK8K7rT260CS6r DWfA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:references:user-agent:from:to:cc:subject :in-reply-to:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=EWGODmlhGyxv2BVvFldIL9NvGjLLmFoizq7zQe7L+LY=; b=aqynL+mFCHMCpAjAl8Rxk3t5H/gtKaHGdueoTsuv55t35rSHGuotzt2/EpLnZuMQ+O +J9gKzO7ctbtUK4hbrp0Ey0t+IvH92A5gMEVuBDt1Uqzjr+E3EbWctpyR999zkQq8ul8 lx60ng3bUA+/XNWGpA46bZxFwISQT7CCDQfDOUtHBlebBx3iQCwJd0AhZxuj70+zVdJX OzOAfCBhIHxrthFn/B1VFfpg6DiiCMv7mCuoDmPsx6nKrkwrwZJ4YFd96iMvP+lCBQMA F0p9YwniXegcp91JOXExbEiONfNOC2R9zXNu5TbZ7jvbOWu+9GDFSphSJW+aJgSwLZAr eq2g== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531RJS5ydYsqIFKFU3KO7tey4dL/3Bi9e474Vwrill1BY1zUtWy/ mcJVDnQSvA9yPPDlO4EEvs4gJoM7 X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJynf9+wfjKdX3jMJCOChaazBfksJN6b/kNgQdBHTkO1oaG3EqjD5zJi/d5LU+t4FiE7X04qzw== X-Received: by 2002:a37:9e17:: with SMTP id h23mr3178070qke.386.1592316190829; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 07:03:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from g1 (c-73-167-118-254.hsd1.ma.comcast.net. [73.167.118.254]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id r5sm16495414qtc.40.2020.06.16.07.03.09 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 16 Jun 2020 07:03:10 -0700 (PDT) References: <338KGSFKQGP1E.23382XUCMS8T3@wilsonb.com> <87v9juwvn0.fsf@gnu.org> <85ftav206f.fsf@gmail.com> <86blljs64k.fsf@gmail.com> User-agent: mu4e 1.2.0; emacs 26.3 From: George Clemmer To: zimoun Subject: Re: Using --manfistest with /manifest files In-reply-to: <86blljs64k.fsf@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 10:03:09 -0400 Message-ID: <85eeqf152a.fsf@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::72c; envelope-from=myglc2@gmail.com; helo=mail-qk1-x72c.google.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: No matching host in p0f cache. That's all we know. X-Spam_score_int: -17 X-Spam_score: -1.8 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.8 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001 autolearn=_AUTOLEARN X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: guix-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org, elaexuotee@wilsonb.com Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" X-Scanner: scn0 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=fail (rsa verify failed) header.d=gmail.com header.s=20161025 header.b=uIRqyADg; dmarc=fail reason="SPF not aligned (relaxed)" header.from=gmail.com (policy=none); spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org X-Spam-Score: 0.09 X-TUID: kqMb2SYAlxgK Hi zimoun, zimoun writes: > In contradiction with what I wrote above, I agree. :-) > > /manifest should be renamed /specifications or > something like that. > > And a comment could be inserted in this file saying: internal usage, do > not modify, etc.. > > WDYT? Sure, that would work. But, on further thought, I would like to amend my suggestion -- to change which ever is easier. I say that because ... "manifest" occurs ~600 times in the ./guix directory. I am guessing its use is deeply embedded with developers. If so, renaming it internally seems like a bad idea. And if we write our internal manifest into the profile and call it "specifications" it will only add the confusion. OTOH, "manifest" occurs only ~50 times in guix.info and the "user API" seems limited to the --manifest option and the functions: specifications->manifest and packages->manifest. Furthermore it is a new concept for new users. So I don't think users care what we call it. Bottom line: change whichever is more convenient for developers. HTH - George