Mark H Weaver <mhw@netris.org> writes:

> Alex Vong <alexvong1995@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Thorsten Wilms <t_w_@freenet.de> writes:
>>
>>> I already had a "rename" binary via util-linux. Then I installed the
>>> package "rename", resulting in another "rename" binary, as I prefer
>>> the Perl version. This was a success in that I got what I wanted.
>>>
>>> However, should this name clash be considered a bug?
>>> Is there a policy for such circumstances?
>>> What happens that the newly installed "rename" gets precedence?
>>>
>> I think it is chosen based on some random criterions
>
> It's not random, but rather a very simple criterion.  The packages
> listed first in the package manifest take priority over ones that come
> later.  If you don't use manifests, "guix package -i <pkg>" puts <pkg>
> at the top of the new manifest, even if it was already present in the
> previous manifest.
>
I see, so this explains how Thorsten managed to get the right rename
(not because of luck or magic...)

I personally had given up using the imprerative "install" interface and
switched using the declarative "manifest" interface. IMO, it makes it
clearer what I've installed and allows me quickly comment / un-comment
fail-to-build packages. With the imprerative interface, I've to remember
which fail-to-build packages I didn't upgrade last time.

So in fact we have a 3rd solution: to re-order the packages in your
manifest.

>        Mark

Cheers,
Alex