From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Konrad Hinsen Subject: Re: =?utf-8?Q?=E2=80=9CGuix?= Profiles in =?utf-8?Q?Practice?= =?utf-8?Q?=E2=80=9D?= Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2019 14:33:10 +0100 Message-ID: References: <87r231rulr.fsf@gnu.org> <87o8y3ltc1.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: In-Reply-To: <87o8y3ltc1.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> 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: Pierre Neidhardt , "Thompson, David" , help-guix Cc: guix-devel List-Id: guix-devel.gnu.org Pierre Neidhardt writes: > "Thompson, David" writes: > >> 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 ... > This is essentially what you propose, but to have it at the CLI level > would provide several benefits: ... > Both issues could be addressed the same way. Perhaps. But then, "could" doesn't imply "should". I'd love to see all that functionality easily accessible from the CLI, but I can't say I know how this should best be organized. Maybe we should start a Guix CLI nursery. A project/repository separate from Guix itself that contains a copy of the "guix" script under a different name ("guixx" for guix-extras?) and with the same interface for scripting modules. We could then use this to play collectively with ideas, and if something turns out to work well, migrate it to the official Guix CLI. Does this sound like a good idea? Would anyone else participate in such an experiment? Cheers, Konrad.