Re: Store channel specification in profile

[Pierre Neidhardt <mail@ambrevar.xyz>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1572 bytes --]

zimoun <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> writes:

>> I sorted the export so that it produces a reproducible output, which is
>> more version-control friendly.
>
> IMHO, the sort would not be too expensive; even on all the packages
> that Guix already includes now. ;-)
> So, it does not matter too much, I guess.

I think we are talking about different things :)

What I meant is that if you keep the exported specs under version
control, you will want the packages to be in the same order every time.
Other wise, you could very well have

A
B
C

then on next export

A
C
B

which is the same, but will warrant another commit in your repository
(for no good reason).
Ideally, we would like to avoid useless  commits.

> However, the manifest returned is not necessary functional because the
> pkg1@v1 and pkg2@v2 are not necessary provided by the same commit.
> Therefore we could imagine "options" to the '--export' command, as
> '--export=full' or '--export=light' etc. And even '--export=sorted'
> and maybe combined as '--export=light,sorted'.

As you mentioned in the other email, I think a more convenient solution
to this is to use the format that I suggested which will include the
provenance.

This will save the use from having to deal with too many CLI parameters.

Which I'm still against.  I find that including the specs within the
profile is a much better idea: less effort, plus it ties the spec to a
profile, thus giving a relationship guarantee to the user.

Cheers!

-- 
Pierre Neidhardt
https://ambrevar.xyz/

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 487 bytes --]