ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > Hi Chris, > > Chris Marusich skribis: > >> ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: >> >>> Chris Marusich skribis: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> The manual says ((guix) Invoking guix package): >>>> >>>> This option can also be used to compute the _combined_ search paths >>>> of several profiles. Consider this example: >>>> >>>> $ guix package -p foo -i guile >>>> $ guix package -p bar -i guile-json >>>> $ guix package -p foo -p bar --search-paths >>>> >>>> The last command above reports about the ‘GUILE_LOAD_PATH’ >>>> variable, even though, taken individually, neither ‘foo’ nor ‘bar’ >>>> would lead to that recommendation. >>> >>> [...] >>> >>>> Is the documentation wrong, or is this a regression? >>> >>> Try with “guile2.2-json” instead of “guile-json”. >>> >>> Ludo’. >> >> As usual, you're right! :-) That worked: > > [...] > >> Why does 'guix' resolve to guile@2.2.2, but 'guile-json' resolves to >> guile-json@0.6.0? > > It’s because we’re not done with the transition: > > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2017-03/msg00436.html > > The idea is to incrementally rename all “guile2.2-foo” packages to > “guile-foo”, and, when needed, keep an extra “guile2.0-foo”. For > guile-json this hasn’t been done yet, but now’s probably a good time to > do it. > >> Is it because, as mentioned in the comments in procedure >> 'find-newest-available-packages' in gnu/packages.scm, "the preferred >> package is whichever one was found last by 'fold-packages'"? >> >> I've attached a patch for the documentation which might help clarify >> this for anyone who has the same question in the future. What do you >> think? Too much detail for an edge case, or a useful footnote? > > I would rather not add more text to it because the example will become > valid again soonish, and the extra text might muddy waters. > > WDYT? Yes, I agree - we don't need to explain this temporary edge case. -- Chris