Re: Odd behavior with --dry-run and --upgrade

[Roel Janssen <roel@gnu.org>]

Roel Janssen writes:

> Ludovic Courtès writes:
>
>> Roel Janssen <roel@gnu.org> skribis:
>>
>>> Ludovic Courtès writes:
>>>
>>>> Hi!
>>>>
>>>> Alex Kost <alezost@gmail.com> skribis:
>>>>
>>>>> Roel Janssen (2016-07-23 18:11 +0300) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear Guix,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For some time now, running `guix package --dry-run --upgrade' results in
>>>>>> build actions involving grafting.  For a dry-run, I find that really
>>>>>> odd.  I believe the correct behavior should be what can be achieved
>>>>>> with: `guix package --dry-run --no-grafts --upgrade'.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm totally agree with this; nowadays I always use --dry-run with
>>>>> --no-grafts option.
>>>>
>>>> Same here…
>>>>
>>>>> As a user I expect that --dry-run means no building at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW it's not just about ‘guix package --dry-run --upgrade’, it relates
>>>>> to all commands, for example ‘guix build --dry-run foo’, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> OTOH, if a future ‘--dry-run’ would mean what ‘--dry-run --no-grafts’
>>>>> means now, than how to achieve what ‘--dry-run’ means now?  Or rather:
>>>>> does anyone use just --dry-run (without --no-grafts)?  Is it really
>>>>> useful?
>>>>
>>>> In theory it could be useful for ‘guix build’, since it’s a “low level”
>>>> tool and people using it may want to be able to distinguish between
>>>> grafted and non-grafted results.
>>>>
>>>> But honestly, I think changing ‘--dry-run’ to do ‘--dry-run --no-grafts’
>>>> would be fine, and probably better than the current situation.
>>>
>>> Could you provide some insight in where I should be looking to att the
>>> check to 'graft?'?
>>
>> Everything that relates to command-line argument processing is in (guix
>> scripts build), for the common options, and then in each (guix scripts
>> *) module.
>>
>> Roughly, the change I suggest would be along these lines:
>>
>>
>> However, since --dry-run is processed separately in each command, this
>> change should probably be duplicated.
>>
>> Would you like to look into it?
>>
>> Something similar should be done in the Emacs interface.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Ludo’.
>
> Sorry for the delay.  The attached patch applies your idea to all
> subcommands that have a --dry-run option.  Is this what you had in mind?
>
> Kind regards,
> Roel Janssen

Is it OK to push this change?

Kind regards,
Roel Janssen