From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp0 ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms11 with LMTPS id qKqnMrlxEmAUTgAA0tVLHw (envelope-from ) for ; Thu, 28 Jan 2021 08:11:37 +0000 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp0 with LMTPS id uFyULrlxEmDgQgAA1q6Kng (envelope-from ) for ; Thu, 28 Jan 2021 08:11:37 +0000 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 364F29402D6 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 2021 08:11:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:51730 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l52Ot-0002ck-TA for larch@yhetil.org; Thu, 28 Jan 2021 03:11:35 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:52374) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l52Ol-0002cZ-4c for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 28 Jan 2021 03:11:27 -0500 Received: from mailrelay.tugraz.at ([129.27.2.202]:9007) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l52Oh-0001Pf-RT for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 28 Jan 2021 03:11:26 -0500 Received: from nijino.local (217-149-173-242.nat.highway.telekom.at [217.149.173.242]) by mailrelay.tugraz.at (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4DRCpp48bVz1LBRv; Thu, 28 Jan 2021 09:11:14 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mailrelay.tugraz.at 4DRCpp48bVz1LBRv DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tugraz.at; s=mailrelay; t=1611821474; bh=vNgP+dO7NgCFD8ydQZPf3qo4PP2OoItM6EXVsh69lgc=; h=Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=aUM17Gvj8dIVe4emr8W5P3jnSlsV2hfz19hcZU+zRUgNCP1efUaCC3BmaDnqvw1yr l5FFrgT7aqOG09Sm6LBVF7jD67/rJBG4lI36MYq7aC0CZSIQh5SZVFlQEPCzNXLYPW FZKHKcNpcrE9I5XMVDyYZtoOhl6CYhMot3Srt6x8= Message-ID: <8fb526713a76ad993aef59e8a944f57751e970d7.camel@student.tugraz.at> Subject: An idea regarding Guix Profiles From: Leo Prikler To: rg@raghavgururajan.name Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2021 09:11:13 +0100 In-Reply-To: 8f07a08a-449b-6ff9-50ed-f4b7dd989114@raghavgururajan.name Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" User-Agent: Evolution 3.34.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TUG-Backscatter-control: bt4lQm5Tva3SBgCuw0EnZw X-Spam-Scanner: SpamAssassin 3.003001 X-Spam-Score-relay: -1.9 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.74 on 129.27.10.117 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=129.27.2.202; envelope-from=leo.prikler@student.tugraz.at; helo=mailrelay.tugraz.at X-Spam_score_int: -42 X-Spam_score: -4.3 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: guix-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_IN X-Migadu-Spam-Score: -3.05 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=pass header.d=tugraz.at header.s=mailrelay header.b=aUM17Gvj; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=student.tugraz.at; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org X-Migadu-Queue-Id: 364F29402D6 X-Spam-Score: -3.05 X-Migadu-Scanner: scn1.migadu.com X-TUID: 3HRSltMQhCq3 Hello Raghav, I had a similar idea a little more than a year ago:< https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2019-12/msg00358.html> See also < https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2020-01/msg00083.html> for the discussion it spawned. While the default profile would stay active at all times, storing profiles in a single location would make it much easier to activate them at a whim -- in particular also to do so from a Guix command. However, this change would obviously not be compatible to how Guix functioned before and thus the proposal needs to be written with care to at least be future-proof. The discussion has stalled since, probably because I had not put enough thought into the initial idea. I am planning to revive this idea in a somewhat different form later this year, but I still need time to formalize my thoughts. Regards, Leo