From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: taylanbayirli@gmail.com (Taylan Ulrich =?utf-8?Q?Bay=C4=B1rl=C4=B1?=
	=?utf-8?Q?=2FKammer?=)
Subject: Re: Using 'system*' instead of 'system' in 'guix environment'
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2015 19:10:19 +0200
Message-ID: <87612h70ck.fsf@T420.taylan>
References: <87io6iqhbt.fsf@izanagi.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me>
	<87ziztyext.fsf@gnu.org>
	<CAJ=RwfaGBKB1K+kukEXGQTA5eBH_Rov3qJL0esgBu=U0scjyDQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<87vbahpfrn.fsf@gnu.org>
	<CAJ=RwfbpEigt3MRj-wadn=MgXus=wvMPFhbuGnJyh0QAV5Rw1Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<87a8rt73dc.fsf@T420.taylan>
	<CAJ=Rwfb6L5=ghFqSZhCA9MpEM2q1wDZGKi=-Vij2h4uYYtw4OA@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:42205)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <taylanbayirli@gmail.com>) id 1ZkEi9-0001rY-8e
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 08 Oct 2015 13:10:37 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <taylanbayirli@gmail.com>) id 1ZkEhy-0001g2-Ae
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 08 Oct 2015 13:10:32 -0400
In-Reply-To: <CAJ=Rwfb6L5=ghFqSZhCA9MpEM2q1wDZGKi=-Vij2h4uYYtw4OA@mail.gmail.com>
	(David Thompson's message of "Thu, 8 Oct 2015 12:32:32 -0400")
List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution."
	<guix-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
To: "Thompson, David" <dthompson2@worcester.edu>
Cc: guix-devel <guix-devel@gnu.org>

"Thompson, David" <dthompson2@worcester.edu> writes:

> On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 12:05 PM, Taylan Ulrich Bay=C4=B1rl=C4=B1/Kammer
> <taylanbayirli@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "Thompson, David" <dthompson2@worcester.edu> writes:
>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 10:59 AM, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s <ludo@gnu.org> wr=
ote:
>>>
>>>> I guess we must still support -E for compatibility.  Probably it should
>>>> do an implicit =E2=80=98sh -c=E2=80=99?
>>>
>>> This introduces implementation issues.  What if a user provides both a
>>> -E command *and* a command after '--'?  What's the sane thing to do?
>>>
>>> I also don't feel strongly that we need to keep flags around for
>>> compatibility this early in the game, given that we are alpha software
>>> and such.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>
>> I thought it would be nice to keep also for convenience...
>>
>> -E 'foo' is somewhat nicer than -- sh -c 'foo'.
>
> But this is not a very common case (citing my own personal experience
> and sudo, ssh, and other programs that use this pattern), and now we
> have to deal with precedence rules in the argument parser.  If we have
> to keep -E, then I would rather not implement the '--' stuff.

Well never mind then, I don't have a strong opinion.

I used -E 'make && make check' frequently in the recent past but meh,
I'll set up some aliases in worst case, or finally integrate M-x compile
with a dir-local compile-command into my workflow.

Taylan