From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark H Weaver Subject: bug#40612: guix build system --dry-run is broken Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2020 17:50:56 -0400 Message-ID: <87mu775elg.fsf@netris.org> References: <87wo6jax7c.fsf@netris.org> <20200414171632.41dae6fd@alma-ubu> <87d088sn6j.fsf@gnu.org> <87ftd1uc11.fsf@netris.org> <87y2qs68i9.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:59758 helo=eggs1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jQHs7-0001MX-4q for bug-guix@gnu.org; Sun, 19 Apr 2020 17:53:03 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs1p.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jQHs6-0001OT-Fg for bug-guix@gnu.org; Sun, 19 Apr 2020 17:53:02 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:34576) by eggs1p.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jQHs6-0001OC-3c for bug-guix@gnu.org; Sun, 19 Apr 2020 17:53:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jQHs6-0001dx-0X for bug-guix@gnu.org; Sun, 19 Apr 2020 17:53:02 -0400 Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <87y2qs68i9.fsf@gnu.org> List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sender: "bug-Guix" To: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: 40612@debbugs.gnu.org Hi Ludovic, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrote: > Mark H Weaver skribis: > >> Yes, of course, I agree that it's not possible to present a build plan >> ahead of time when grafts are enabled. That was the case before these >> changes, and it's the case today. >> >> The only part I don't understand is why you decided that "--dry-run" >> should no longer imply "--no-grafts". Does it work better for other >> people? For me, the "--dry-run" output has become utterly useless >> unless "--no-grafts" is included. > > I explained the pros and cons of having =E2=80=98--dry-run=E2=80=99 no lo= nger implying > =E2=80=98--with-grafts=E2=80=99 here: > > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2020-03/msg00337.html I read that message, but was unable to find any mention of the 'pros' of having '--dry-run' no longer imply '--no-grafts'. Did I miss it? I still don't know what is the argument in favor of that change. > =E2=80=98guix package --dry-run=E2=80=99 overall works well IME, except w= hen a > dependency of a fixed-output derivation is missing, as explained above. > > =E2=80=98guix system=E2=80=99 doesn=E2=80=99t work so well as you note (t= hough again, that > depends on what you=E2=80=99re building vs. what you have in store). For what it's worth, I've found the --dry-run output to be similarly useless when rebuilding my user profile as well. That said, I acknowledge that I use Guix in a very unusual way (e.g. without substitutes, never running "guix pull", always running from a git checkout using ./pre-inst-env), so I could believe that it works better for most other Guix users. If that's the case, I can just change my private branch to make '--dry-run' imply '--no-grafts' again. Thanks, Mark