From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp1 ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms11 with LMTPS id cK9KJ22M6F4tFQAA0tVLHw (envelope-from ) for ; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 09:10:05 +0000 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp1 with LMTPS id njv1Im2M6F45ZAAAbx9fmQ (envelope-from ) for ; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 09:10:05 +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 172CF94013C for ; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 09:10:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:48362 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jl7bX-0007jJ-Sv for larch@yhetil.org; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 05:10:03 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:40196) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jl7bP-0007j2-4B for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 05:09:55 -0400 Received: from mail-wm1-x32c.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::32c]:39415) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jl7bN-00040d-GX for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 05:09:54 -0400 Received: by mail-wm1-x32c.google.com with SMTP id t194so2249532wmt.4 for ; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 02:09:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :mime-version; bh=mIb2uTp2uWRFYq25HlGF//QemAlrw56AoJA6XQ9TJm4=; b=Kq7mqkWfjRqmBtBTvpOIw+nV1PgLlKzl3DKOXbOPAyukGuntRlj4Ss85A+4EB3cgJZ 7vIVFgE8H5+DGKAbrvKoJyQhVAGXHVLR7yh69vYGSMzrx9HjyC6d+DssWr2rQvtgfhAg PDcYvwSBTwC0Ct4BL+90oFgiWa/0dQOUBXqEF1VUVqqHttdcboW5aj0pQlA9rdAXxzXo G36LPbVK/L4x5cxPztkCbyEH1V9iAuxvyVvqwA+2zk4i3KYoisF6LQG1N2vDboezojJJ KRobCSwj36geQ+xVoD8IgzE0O3nDPbQx5cHvpJVCXUkWyaF8OHQOlJCnvuh1eYfUiy/P pSgQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:mime-version; bh=mIb2uTp2uWRFYq25HlGF//QemAlrw56AoJA6XQ9TJm4=; b=C6Kk+ndLFpzC3BX3bagj43wXCfNoWGEb0gNghXnyEnPYlAHsdwrfMySbceGOPsNjO/ e+htZr5Iapo37pUlycgiOXoxS4cF2MIIMM0Y1SuTvf9ItHUun9C1Ycy99b2v+hkze23s cT+5nUYhfqnpHbxSJrgZrCARJTikzqwMHuy+iDC+VCCrU6+H5+1Pd7LLC6RNfzcyGOwi EFcbKosqbcKz2Q21+mLmoLC23F2Y6wl8iI2SZqWp7LWDEY+cY0OsGKQFoh0ISiaeA1/2 tsH6eh2XNC4GPqJpqjpxhDngMRzwV9tEodmT7UxPgvGH+yHtPa5cPJ/i0sxDf9CoVy9B Cqzg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532yvNd7P9qLGN1FS41CDPc3uCtSRPdZQJEkg71Wm120XgUupzwE 3hiTO9bCCqh/Wy7q8UwsKrpdJmTT X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxr4BRC37kHZrZDKM4uvB8hpWFM0AQ+gKqI6fb/w0jlnbp4ATPfl6M1lgkWKk/6kAIwu5xD3A== X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:2313:: with SMTP id 19mr2265898wmo.51.1592298591176; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 02:09:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lili ([2a01:e0a:59b:9120:65d2:2476:f637:db1e]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j5sm28833008wrq.39.2020.06.16.02.09.50 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 16 Jun 2020 02:09:50 -0700 (PDT) From: zimoun To: elaexuotee@wilsonb.com Subject: Re: Using --manfistest with /manifest files In-Reply-To: <3IMA7W1L0NQCB.3GCC1X0HBIALO@wilsonb.com> References: <338KGSFKQGP1E.23382XUCMS8T3@wilsonb.com> <86mu549322.fsf@gmail.com> <3IMA7W1L0NQCB.3GCC1X0HBIALO@wilsonb.com> Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 11:09:49 +0200 Message-ID: <86eeqfs7fm.fsf@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2a00:1450:4864:20::32c; envelope-from=zimon.toutoune@gmail.com; helo=mail-wm1-x32c.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: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 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_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" X-Scanner: scn0 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=pass header.d=gmail.com header.s=20161025 header.b=Kq7mqkWf; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=gmail.com; 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: -1.71 X-TUID: omd3H1ytbFpg Dear, On Mon, 15 Jun 2020 at 19:08, elaexuotee@wilsonb.com wrote: > I went ahead and read through the threads that Pierre shared in a different > reply. For posterity and to collect my own thoughts, let me see if I can > distill the discussion so far: [...] > If the answer to the final question above is no, then that seems like a much > larger problem. However, if the answer is yes, then I would naively expect > profile reification to be mostly a matter of collecting together all the > sources of input that define a profile. Does forward-compatibility make this > less straightforward than I am thinking? What else am I missing? Thank you for your inputs. >From my understanding, what you are proposing is a variant of what Pierre proposes. To be precise, at Guix Days, Pierre and I discussed to change a bit the format of /manifest in order to unify the current situation of "manifest.scm" (code evaluated) and "/manifest" (flat data); as Pierre explained elsewhere in this thread. The change of internals will not happen, IMHO, because dealing with the general case adds too much burden, and the use-case discussed here -- recreate the exact same profile from another imperative profile -- does not deserve so much attention, again IMHO. >From my point of view, it is a technical problem of internal representation and then of UI. And Ludo expressed that he is not in favor for such internal change, because a lot of reasons he explained elsewhere (argh! I do not like what I am doing here: be imprecise without citing exactly, anyway!). The best, if I understand correctly, is simply to robustify the Pierre's script and provide a clean '--export-manifest' from a profile which should be an approximation. >> Sorry I am too lazy to search, but I think I remember that at the time >> Pierre sent -- probably in the mega thread :-) -- a small script to >> extract relevant information from /manifest; the preliminary >> for '--export-manifest'. :-) > > Perhaps you are thinking of Pierre's script here? > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2020-02/msg00154.html Yes. All the best, simon