Re: Using --manfistest with <profile>/manifest files

[elaexuotee@wilsonb.com]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2728 bytes --]

This is a good point. The naming of `<package>/manifest' does invite confusion
when first encountering it.

That said, I am pretty sure there is a place for `<profile>/manifest.scm'.
Given the `--manifest' option to several commands, it makes profiles first
class. In particular, it would let users easily `guix pack' or `guix archive'
arbitrary profiles as needed. At the moment, it's not at all obvious how to
`guix pack' the equivalent of `guix environment --container <package>'.

FWIW, I never expected `<profile>/manifest' to encode "this is what the user
ordered," so much as "this is the recipe for (deterministically) reproducing
this exact profile." For the former we have `packages->manifest',
`specifications->manifest' etc. The latter is what I understand this discussion
to be about.

George Clemmer <myglc2@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:
> 
> > elaexuotee@wilsonb.com skribis:
> 
> >> First, am I missing something? Is there a better/preferred way to make use of
> >> the `manifest' files in profiles?
> 
> > You’re not missing anything: it’s a longstanding source of confusion
> > that these ‘manifest’ files are not like the ‘manifest.scm’ files.
> > These ‘manifest’ files are meant for internal consumption.
> 
> This hurt my head for a while a few years ago until I realized that
> 'manifest.scm' is the guix "order" and ‘.guix-profile/manifest’ is the
> guix "packing list".
> 
> But actually a guix' 'manifest' packing list goes well beyond what we
> normally find in a packing list by containing detailed info about how
> the specific products were made, down to the specific design for the
> specific version shipped.
> 
> Thought of this way it is easy to understand why a receiver of a
> 'manifest' can only estimate the set of 'manifest.scm' that might
> produce it. A simple-minded example: did the manifest.scm specify the
> version of the package shipped or is this an artifact of a) when
> 'manifest.scm' was processed or b) of the requirements of the other
> packages that were received?
> 
> In any event, once I saw it this way it no longer troubled me that guix
> doesn't have a pushbutton way to "reverse" 'manifest' into
> 'manifest.scm'.
> 
> ISTM we set ourselves up for confused users and a lot of explaining by
> labeling two very different things with same name :-0
> 
> Yes, only 'manifest.scm' is in the doc, but '.guix-profile/manifest'
> smacks a user in the face pretty quickly which leads to these messy
> questions.
> 
> IMO we could dramatically simplify the situation, and simplify our
> lives, by simply renaming the .guix-profile/manifest file ;-)
> 
> George



[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 260 bytes --]