Re: Recent change in 'guix package --search-paths' behavior?

[Chris Marusich <cmmarusich@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2167 bytes --]

ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:

> Hi Chris,
>
> Chris Marusich <cmmarusich@gmail.com> skribis:
>
>> ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>>
>>> Chris Marusich <cmmarusich@gmail.com> skribis:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> The manual says ((guix) Invoking guix package):
>>>>
>>>>      This option can also be used to compute the _combined_ search paths
>>>>      of several profiles.  Consider this example:
>>>>
>>>>           $ guix package -p foo -i guile
>>>>           $ guix package -p bar -i guile-json
>>>>           $ guix package -p foo -p bar --search-paths
>>>>
>>>>      The last command above reports about the ‘GUILE_LOAD_PATH’
>>>>      variable, even though, taken individually, neither ‘foo’ nor ‘bar’
>>>>      would lead to that recommendation.
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> Is the documentation wrong, or is this a regression?
>>>
>>> Try with “guile2.2-json” instead of “guile-json”.
>>>
>>> Ludo’.
>>
>> As usual, you're right!  :-)  That worked:
>
> [...]
>
>> Why does 'guix' resolve to guile@2.2.2, but 'guile-json' resolves to
>> guile-json@0.6.0?
>
> It’s because we’re not done with the transition:
>
>   https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2017-03/msg00436.html
>
> The idea is to incrementally rename all “guile2.2-foo” packages to
> “guile-foo”, and, when needed, keep an extra “guile2.0-foo”.  For
> guile-json this hasn’t been done yet, but now’s probably a good time to
> do it.
>
>> Is it because, as mentioned in the comments in procedure
>> 'find-newest-available-packages' in gnu/packages.scm, "the preferred
>> package is whichever one was found last by 'fold-packages'"?
>>
>> I've attached a patch for the documentation which might help clarify
>> this for anyone who has the same question in the future.  What do you
>> think?  Too much detail for an edge case, or a useful footnote?
>
> I would rather not add more text to it because the example will become
> valid again soonish, and the extra text might muddy waters.
>
> WDYT?

Yes, I agree - we don't need to explain this temporary edge case.

-- 
Chris

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 832 bytes --]