From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Subject: Re: ~/.guix-profile/manifest usage with "guix package -m [manifest]" / "guix pack -m [manifest]" etc.. Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 15:44:12 +0200 Message-ID: <87murk4mz7.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87h8ic36ix.fsf@gnu.org> <87sh1oms8a.fsf@gnu.org> <87lg7gt735.fsf@elephly.net> <871s9039q6.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 ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:60208) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gAbGT-0003CJ-2D for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 09:44:36 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gAbGL-0008Pi-3k for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 09:44:32 -0400 In-Reply-To: (George Clemmer's message of "Wed, 10 Oct 2018 10:07:05 -0400") 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.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: George Clemmer Cc: "guix-devel@gnu.org" , YOANN P Hi, George Clemmer skribis: > Ludovic Court=C3=A8s writes: > >> Hello, >> >> Ricardo Wurmus skribis: >> > [...] >>> You can put this in a file =E2=80=9Cmanifest-to-manifest.scm=E2=80=9D a= nd run it like >>> this from a Guix source checkout: >>> >>> ./pre-inst-env guile -s manifest-to-manifest.scm /path/to/.guix-pro= file > my-manifest.scm >> >> I like how the script=E2=80=99s name highlights the naming inconsistency= . :-) > > ... and that we should consider renaming one of these "manifests" ;-) > >>> You can then proceed to install the generated manifest with: >>> >>> guix package -m my-manifest.scm -p /path/to/new/.guix-profile >>> >>> If that=E2=80=99s what you=E2=80=99re looking for I suppose we could fi= nd a place for >>> something like that under the umbrella of =E2=80=9Cguix package=E2=80= =9D. >> >> The problem, as I see it, is that this might give a false impression >> that both =E2=80=9Cmanifests=E2=80=9D are entirely equivalent, which is = not the case. > > This "false impression" is caused by the "naming inconsistency" (above) > rather that by the proposed function, isn't it? True, the naming inconsistency is probably the root problem. Now, it should be said that ~/.guix-profile/manifest is not documented anywhere, so people fiddling with it are on their own anyway. :-) >> I sympathize with George=E2=80=99s idea of making it easier to move from= the >> incremental style to the declarative style, but I wonder if we should go >> beyond suggesting to basically copy the package names shown in =E2=80=9C= guix >> package -I=E2=80=9D to the manifest file. > > Does this mean to have "manifest-to-manifest.scm" add any non-default > (in the current Guix version) package outputs and versions to the > package specifications produced? Or something else? manifest-to-manifest.scm works matching package names/versions, which are ambiguous compared to store items. This ambiguity means that the =E2=80=9Cconversion=E2=80=9D that manifest-to-manifest.scm performs is nece= ssarily lossy. Ludo=E2=80=99.