From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:33899) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1elJaA-0006bH-9x for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 12 Feb 2018 14:16:07 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1elJa6-0001NT-Cw for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 12 Feb 2018 14:16:06 -0500 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:60373) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1elJa6-0001NK-9r for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 12 Feb 2018 14:16:02 -0500 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1elJa6-0006dL-4u for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 12 Feb 2018 14:16:02 -0500 Subject: [bug#30410] [PATCH 2/2] doc: Document the --manifest option for guix pack. Resent-Message-ID: From: myglc2@gmail.com References: Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2018 14:15:14 -0500 In-Reply-To: (Konrad Hinsen's message of "Sat, 10 Feb 2018 12:35:41 +0100") Message-ID: <86r2pq81fh.fsf@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-patches" To: Konrad Hinsen Cc: 30410@debbugs.gnu.org Hi Konrad, Very cool patch! On 02/10/2018 at 12:35 Konrad Hinsen writes: > +for use on machines that do not have Guix installed. Note that you can > +specify @emph{either} a manifest file @emph{or} a list of packages, > +but not both. FWIW, here are a few thoughts ... It would be helpful to add an example or two of "list of packages". The term manifest has a few meanings in guix. There are the "input manifests" forms accepted by '--manifest=' and the "output manifests" produced by 'guix package' (e.g.,$HOME/.guix-profile/manifest). Only input manifests are documented now. But ISTM there may eventually be a tool to produce an input manifest from a user's profile that has grown organically through install/remove operations. If/when that happens, "output manifests" might also be mentioned in the doc. Currently the doc doesn't show an actual manifest. Rather it shows 2 "input manifest" forms that are acceptable to '--manifest=' ... (use-package-modules guile emacs) (packages->manifest (list emacs guile-2.0 ;; Use a specific package output. (list guile-2.0 "debug"))) ... and ... (specifications->manifest '("emacs" "guile@2.2" "guile@2.2:debug")) These can be a source of confusion, typos, and error (or at least they were to me). So I wonder: Does adding a 3rd "list of packages" form make the option murkier? Would a separate option be simpler to document/use? HTH - George