From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pierre Neidhardt Subject: Re: Store channel specification in profile Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2020 09:09:24 +0100 Message-ID: <875zfkczij.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> References: <87blsyelgm.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <87zhg1xvmo.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <874kx8gxh1.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <87blreasgd.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <87pnfpsgfx.fsf@gnu.org> <87a76rqu5j.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <877e1vqowd.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <87zhe4px2a.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <87wo91p9yt.fsf@gnu.org> <87eev8gewx.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <87pneq140d.fsf@gnu.org> <8736bldmzr.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <87zhdp2p16.fsf@gnu.org> <87imkdky1w.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <87ftf0j6zq.fsf@gnu.org> <87imjvarez.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:55668) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1j9P5t-00073Q-VP for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 04 Mar 2020 03:09:30 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1j9P5s-00021N-F6 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 04 Mar 2020 03:09:29 -0500 In-Reply-To: List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: zimoun Cc: Guix Devel --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable zimoun writes: >> I sorted the export so that it produces a reproducible output, which is >> more version-control friendly. > > IMHO, the sort would not be too expensive; even on all the packages > that Guix already includes now. ;-) > So, it does not matter too much, I guess. I think we are talking about different things :) What I meant is that if you keep the exported specs under version control, you will want the packages to be in the same order every time. Other wise, you could very well have A B C then on next export A C B which is the same, but will warrant another commit in your repository (for no good reason). Ideally, we would like to avoid useless commits. > However, the manifest returned is not necessary functional because the > pkg1@v1 and pkg2@v2 are not necessary provided by the same commit. > Therefore we could imagine "options" to the '--export' command, as > '--export=3Dfull' or '--export=3Dlight' etc. And even '--export=3Dsorted' > and maybe combined as '--export=3Dlight,sorted'. As you mentioned in the other email, I think a more convenient solution to this is to use the format that I suggested which will include the provenance. This will save the use from having to deal with too many CLI parameters. Which I'm still against. I find that including the specs within the profile is a much better idea: less effort, plus it ties the spec to a profile, thus giving a relationship guarantee to the user. Cheers! =2D-=20 Pierre Neidhardt https://ambrevar.xyz/ --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEUPM+LlsMPZAEJKvom9z0l6S7zH8FAl5fYjQACgkQm9z0l6S7 zH/C4AgAqM026DsPDOFufYQDtpzzL4Yt56eJE/umLJfa/gED4ij+GWpjKcu+pvji +WKwImjM2kMEsjzizuYgEKQUiZB25U8AM11DRbEOklj6Yi+HcEGG0MOfz7/Fhbq1 9q+TZ39BF4U52n5RLi3IpHWvb71jdC2oxL3LDkFE4KFPnLOxmV4HPA9Ns9aHE9am zKcAy6+212PkTJ0zbosMd2OC588CkeIicjChd9dB1lttgqXxCW+fR5JqFZdHOHmX Q/ubfMamoczqKPY8TvtfH11QCaYSnlyrFAZh2UVT8afYK3V9lVsx4agwHtlvmkvw i34QC32OVlBqW7tM82STf+fX6hgqgA== =29r/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--