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 GGceOlbM6F5rQQAA0tVLHw (envelope-from ) for ; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 13:42:46 +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 0Ob5NVbM6F7abQAAB5/wlQ (envelope-from ) for ; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 13:42:46 +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 96F29940BFF for ; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 13:42:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:40414 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jlBrR-0004ah-Gk for larch@yhetil.org; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 09:42:45 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:49222) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jlBrH-0004aX-D6 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 09:42:35 -0400 Received: from mail-wm1-x32a.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::32a]:52466) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jlBrF-0000oO-Pw; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 09:42:35 -0400 Received: by mail-wm1-x32a.google.com with SMTP id r9so2937195wmh.2; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 06:42:33 -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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=EdUjN+5TKl1Unt3VyBhuiItu8r33rwsuDSPyfJEa7xg=; b=MScot6vAzuKjHAGJZxlnxT9HzPV0kLo88fVPoq3f19ajXrrnSFQse9uzk/Zg5BfTp9 ArOBwNchzfJzup362TDgLP4MzApnc1Q5fk10MNhlM8LpQKZQI4fgztel4NMA1BUu1ln5 yW4KAq4d+LxNgaQYV4FbY3cfSOY4OTmMRctSYAg/UaqVxkXQKb+BMnWQz5FNFsrH9foD 66jy8Zqu59XEZ5GH7TnbdLQvX0M0wuXs11PD2TDHh+sIrkKZMJERQituFGDsU39cO9yO c1jT5Cs9yeQ6HH5So4s+Y1pscMZYiw3GO0ZrTbVN72ud018usfdL6PAp/i2OWbi0MArM KAlg== 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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=EdUjN+5TKl1Unt3VyBhuiItu8r33rwsuDSPyfJEa7xg=; b=loeF1F3MEo5MupBXm085t+pjFOJTvVdv6mkVJ5D6bG/8YtQT7vjHZv6qJB+Bxrm6Um GFiO+M1UsV2Rl6qaXkb3FewChR+gKoTsHJZuzOIjg4EdoKdlvVaZmGsx7fBmbh037zSk efELYXBLjpyysUkkQcsqjmXz5ktqvrBvBSF10FWNUBowwWWBudyiSEqToWYag8Et1R3e JS/sQXt3N3mTpY9nGULty7qgrm56zIJkYjAwVWZaE1K8gJz2QIgfFWa6tbP7knsaR1qg QzVQpPsyl6ZBt1v9elWyFKjrU0IsjqCrqBr1XYvmVqQ1UwoHLfaMEjTvc9QYWWBFOL30 X87g== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532iWLxeUSslaQfXmQ+o5+g+RNYz9EMUQzCo+1+yhLFofFAT0emN LITqcZg7rULlkbxWgFkKQnbY4wRZ X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzBL+1PZhd1k3kfbaImh8+Fnt1rGZrKEoPzaEZgeBmn0M8WCFsrpUO9w6+DLfd1x7pizGBSrg== X-Received: by 2002:a1c:23d2:: with SMTP id j201mr3325480wmj.186.1592314951633; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 06:42:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lili ([2a01:e0a:59b:9120:65d2:2476:f637:db1e]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d11sm30047787wrm.64.2020.06.16.06.42.30 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 16 Jun 2020 06:42:30 -0700 (PDT) From: zimoun To: elaexuotee@wilsonb.com, Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Subject: Re: Using --manfistest with /manifest files In-Reply-To: <2AU8F0YU6YV9A.3KVDEJ754D654@wilsonb.com> References: <338KGSFKQGP1E.23382XUCMS8T3@wilsonb.com> <87v9juwvn0.fsf@gnu.org> <87d062ne8a.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <87y2opu0ue.fsf@gnu.org> <86lfko92fj.fsf@gmail.com> <871rmfwdfp.fsf@gnu.org> <2AU8F0YU6YV9A.3KVDEJ754D654@wilsonb.com> Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 15:42:29 +0200 Message-ID: <86sgevqg8q.fsf@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2a00:1450:4864:20::32a; envelope-from=zimon.toutoune@gmail.com; helo=mail-wm1-x32a.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=fail (rsa verify failed) header.d=gmail.com header.s=20161025 header.b=MScot6vA; 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: WMtmRa2pL5mm Dear, On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 at 20:33, elaexuotee@wilsonb.com wrote: >> 1. We can only approximate that actual profile content; storing >> an approximate =E2=80=98manifest.scm=E2=80=99 along with the profile = would IMO be >> deceptive. > > Is this a technical barrier or a pragmatic one? [...] > If the problem is of pragmatics, then at the very least I would be intere= sted > in hearing a delineation of the challenges. I think this could be helpful= for > the discussion though. It is a pragmatic one. As any good Zen says: "Now is better than never. Although never is often better than *right* now." Going from imperative/sequential "install, pull, remove" way to the declarative manifest.scm way, in the general case, needs to change the format of /manifest (or add another file). Which means transition plan, etc.. Otherwise, on the technical level, all the material is there. So it is some work and it is not clear that it will pay off. >> Yeah, I think our goal is just to provide a tool to migrate from the >> =E2=80=9Cimperative=E2=80=9D way to the declarative way. Once people ha= ve gotten >> started with manifests, they no longer need that migration tool. > > Would you mind commenting on the use case that I started this thread with? > Specifically, I was trying to `guix pack' a `guix environment'. The equiv= alent > is straightforward for purely --ad-hoc environments but not otherwise. I do not see why it is straightforward for some cases. > Personally, I have already encountered several instances where this would= have > been useful. I also think it would be just plain cool to have the ability= to > pack up, containerize, and share arbitrary profiles with non-guix users. Well, I have re-read your initial message and maybe miscommunication here. :-) Because your use case -- pack an existing profile for sharing -- is not really related to transform /manifest to a valid manifest.scm, if I understand correctly. And I agree with you that it should be possible to pack an existing profile (created by any mean). Does "pack --profile-name" fit your needs? If not, yes packing an existing profile could be a feature to "guix pack" -- doing transparently something similar to the Leo's suggestion -- because it is an internal consumption of these /manifest files. All the best, simon