Thanks for replying simon!

zimoun <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> writes:

> I am not sure to understand what you are naming “inferior” here.

Sorry for the ambiguity, was not being self-deprecating. I meant
attempts to use certain guix inferiors as described in the guix manual
failed (from Package Management > Inferiors):

> Sometimes you might need to mix packages from the revision of Guix
> you’re currently running with packages available in a different
> revision of Guix.  Guix “inferiors” allow you to achieve that by
> composing different Guix revisions in arbitrary ways.

So answering your questions about what I did:
>> [4]
>> | package of interest | guix commit  | status |
>> |---------------------+--------------+--------|
>> | python-matplotlib   | "7e06086522" | bad    |
>> | python-pandas       | ce2cfcabfc   | bad    |
>> | python-networkx     | 269f100330   | good   |
>> | python-numpy        | 4d6ed794dd   | bad    |
>> | python-scipy        | 02ddafef55   | good   |

> What do you mean by “bad”?

For <package of interest>, guix has a definition for it at commit
<guix commit>. When I declare an inferior channel at <guix commit> and
try to build that channel, I note in the <status> column whether it
builds ("good") or I got the [3] message following a backtrace ("bad").
If it were to build, then I would use (first (lookup-inferior-packages
(<<package-of-interest>>-inferior))) in a manifest for the
package itself.

> What did you run?  The command and the file(s)?
I attached the file I used to define the channels and inferiors. As for
the command, I just load these definitions piecemeal into the repl.