Ludovic Courtès (2015-09-08 23:10 +0300) wrote: > Alex Kost skribis: [...] >> From 9ffc27f7a076e4213ef3bee00e5cebad501685ac Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >> From: Alex Kost >> Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 16:16:41 +0300 >> Subject: [PATCH 2/2] guix build: Add 'build-package'. >> MIME-Version: 1.0 >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 >> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >> >> * guix/scripts/system.scm (maybe-build): Move to ... >> * guix/scripts/build.scm: ...here. >> (build-package): New procedure. > > [...] > >> +(define* (build-package package >> + #:key (use-substitutes? #t) (dry-run? #f) >> + #:allow-other-keys >> + #:rest build-options) >> + "Build PACKAGE using BUILD-OPTIONS. >> +Show what and how will/would be built." >> + (with-store store >> + (run-with-store store >> + (mbegin %store-monad >> + (apply set-build-options* > > Please remove ‘with-store’ and ‘run-with-store’. This should be done on > the Emacs side (maybe via the ,run-in-store meta-command?). Sure, ",run-in-store" sounds great. I have pushed the patches for adding (guix scripts), 'set-build-options*' and 'show-derivation-outputs', so the attached patch (for adding 'build-package') is applied cleanly to master. Ludovic Courtès (2015-08-28 12:24 +0300) wrote: > Alex Kost skribis: > >> Ludovic Courtès (2015-08-26 14:12 +0300) wrote: >> >>> Maybe ‘build-package’ could go to (guix packages)? >> >> ‘build-package’ uses ‘show-…’ procedures from (guix ui) module. I >> thought that adding this module to (guix packages) was not desired, or >> is it OK? > > Right, sorry. So maybe leave in (guix build scripts) with a comment > explaining that it doesn’t have a better place and is for use by the > Emacs UI. (Make sure to use the monadic style as suggested in a > previous message.) So I suppose this comment is not needed anymore (right?) as 'build-package' will beplaced in (guix scripts), and it looks like a rather general procedure. For example, it may be used for something like ‘guix build --package-from-file’ suggested by David: .