Ludovic Courtès (2015-09-08 23:10 +0300) wrote: > Alex Kost skribis: > >> We have some code in (guix scripts …) that is rather common (I mean not >> specific to the current module), but there is no better place for it, >> usually because it uses (guix ui). >> >> So what about making (guix scripts) module for such general stuff? >> I think we can move there ‘maybe-build’, ‘%standard-build-options’, >> ‘set-build-options-from-command-line(*)’, ‘show-build-options-help’, >> perhaps exported procedures from (guix scripts package). And >> ‘build-package’ may also go there, WDYT? >> >> Or maybe just put those things into (guix ui)? > > (guix ui) has become fat; (guix scripts) sounds like a good idea. Then > things like ‘args-fold*’, ‘parse-command-line’, ‘run-guix-command’, > ‘run-guix’, ‘guix-main’, and ‘program-name’ should probably move there > as well (unless I’m overlooking something that would prevent this), > along with ‘maybe-build’ and ‘build-package’. > > How does that sound? I like it. I hope I missed nothing in this patch (it appeared to be a big change). At least "make check" was passed successfully. I think ‘maybe-build’ may move later when ‘build-package’ will be added, ok? Some notes: - ‘program-name’ is used by ‘define-diagnostic’ macro, so I left it in (guix ui). - ‘guix-main’ uses ‘initialize-guix’, so I exported it from (guix ui) or should it be moved to (guix scripts) instead and export ‘%gettext-domain’? - I studied the commit log related to guix/ui.scm, and adjusted the copyright lines accordingly. Also our 'guix' executable will be changed, I'm not sure what consequences it will lead to. Perhaps after this commit, the ‘guix-devel’ package should be updated, or is it not necessary?