Or, just a wild idea: maybe make xspecirl" manifest entries that would modify Docker image?

This actually would resemble the Dockerfile: name, entrypoint, package installs and custom script execution is done in one fine, streamlined. It seems a bit strange for me, for example, to specify things like entrypoint on the guix pack command line.

Best,
Przemek


Sent from Proton Mail mobile



\-------- Original Message --------
On Jan 20, 2023, 16:07, Greg Hogan < code@greghogan.com> wrote:

>
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 7:18 AM Simon Tournier  wrote: > > > Maybe then add an option to guix pack to accept optional name? And if not > > provided, fall back to manifest->friendly-name. > > …yes, I agree. It could be nice to be able to directly name the image. > However, this would mean that the produced Docker pack would not be > bit-to-bit reproducible considering the same manifest. Other said, the > bit-to-bit reproducibility would require three inputs: the channels.scm > file describing the revision of Guix (and potentially other channels), > the manifest.scm file describing the packages and also the name provided > at Docker pack build-time. > > Cheers, > simon The image hash already depends on \`guix pack\` command-line options --entry-point, --save-provenance, and --symlink as well as package transformations, --no-grafts, and --system. Since building a bit-to-bit reproducible docker image already requires replaying the command-line options, adding an optional name would not reduce reproducibility. Greg