From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pierre Neidhardt Subject: Re: =?utf-8?Q?=E2=80=9CGuix?= Profiles in =?utf-8?Q?Practice?= =?utf-8?Q?=E2=80=9D?= Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2019 12:00:30 +0200 Message-ID: <87o8y3ltc1.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> References: <87r231rulr.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: help-guix-bounces+gcggh-help-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Help-Guix" To: "Thompson, David" , help-guix Cc: guix-devel List-Id: guix-devel.gnu.org --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable "Thompson, David" writes: > Great article! Thanks! :) > I spotted a typo in the first paragraph: "on a same system" should be > "on the same system." I can fix it. Out of curiosity, why is it wrong? "All users on a system..." is correct, "All users on a given system" too, so I wonder why "on a same system" would not be. What I meant here is "the same unspecified system". > 'guix environment' is a very composable command, and it's not clear to > me how I would add the stuff I want onto it and it's even less clear > if it's a good idea. Probably not. So, I wonder if maybe a new > subcommand, say 'guix develop', could address this common development > use-case while allowing 'guix environment' to continue being the swiss > army knife that it is. Some simple naming conventions could make this > tool "just work." Running 'guix develop' would check for a profile > symlink with some canonical name, for example '.guix-develop-profile'. > If it exists, it applies the environment variables and spawns a > subshell. If it doesn't exist, it looks for a 'develop.scm' file > (canonical name TBD), builds the profile, symlinks it to > '.guix-develop-profile', and then does the prior steps. The tool > would provide a mechanism to update, etc. and it could even be > expanded later to spawn services like databases. Indeed, while I worked on the article I was frustrated with the CLI, so I wrote this Emacs "hack": https://gitlab.com/emacs-guix/emacs-guix/issues/13 This is essentially what you propose, but to have it at the CLI level would provide several benefits: =2D More universal. =2D Possibly more optimized (e.g. caching). At the end of the article, I also talk about reproducibility, which is currently quite cumbersome to deploy because of the need to refer to a "specific guix channel checkout". Konrad talked about how we could possibly improve the CLI to deal with that as well: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2019-10/msg00511.html Both issues could be addressed the same way. Cheers! =2D-=20 Pierre Neidhardt https://ambrevar.xyz/ --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEUPM+LlsMPZAEJKvom9z0l6S7zH8FAl20GT4ACgkQm9z0l6S7 zH/ijwf/b1g0DiNwXJeXDvfFpP+OQaWS6X7lU4urlYIP1MnaZlzzRHSo+PZEJIjb OAgSp7qNbGtQDFxlcAWooo1Jy67iplqlRkjm+Cdi96Z4JKOyY+a3jharG5lt5j9B khfZE+wIEMgVqwhheXx5UzH6Y8cWpZOYURrhN+lQwNChECpVTZ+ULwv2lqFaK70c a6UVNhl5c6IOZBMoPyUABeE9hxyFGiwQMd9AxFUvPQqjxez2Jfd5Pbgx9mtxOj7L HGfqJBUM1RkmMS/JP8OsHRL5USKVKGHip/dpgTFgKazejUc9JY526AQoHQt4BRFt sVbvncvDzwFkMvejlMkXQgcdmQbQnQ== =becL -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--