[bug#59520] [PATCH] doc: Note that guix package can operate on outputs.

[bug#59520] [PATCH] doc: Note that guix package can operate on outputs.

[Abhishek Cherath]

* doc/guix.texi ("Package Management")
	["Invoking guix package"]: Mention support for operating
	on store paths.
---
 doc/guix.texi | 5 +++--
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/doc/guix.texi b/doc/guix.texi
index c0cb24d709..70c473bdf6 100644
--- a/doc/guix.texi
+++ b/doc/guix.texi
@@ -3424,9 +3424,10 @@ The @var{options} can be among the following:
 Install the specified @var{package}s.
 
 Each @var{package} may specify either a simple package name, such as
-@code{guile}, or a package name followed by an at-sign and version number,
+@code{guile}; a package name followed by an at-sign and version number,
 such as @code{guile@@1.8.8} or simply @code{guile@@1.8} (in the latter
-case, the newest version prefixed by @code{1.8} is selected).
+case, the newest version prefixed by @code{1.8} is selected); or a store path,
+such as @file{/gnu/store/qyrids57rb050vdzsdskdf7p59nlchnv-guile-1.8.8}.
 
 If no version number is specified, the
 newest available version will be selected.  In addition, @var{package}

base-commit: 7a2082023ad9c7479bfedf39537606a088222d48
-- 
2.38.1

[bug#59520] [PATCH] doc: Note that ‘guix package’ accepts file names.

[Tobias Geerinckx-Rice via Guix-patches via]

From: Abhishek Cherath <abhi@quic.us>

* doc/guix.texi (Package Management)[Invoking guix package]:
Mention support for operating on store file names.  Update the example
PACKAGE to guile@3.0.7.

Co-authored-by: Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <me@tobias.gr>
---

Hi Abhishek!

What do you think about the alternative below?

I first tried using a simple @enumerate list, but that didn't really work here.

I changed ‘store path’ to ‘store file name’.  The former is a Nix term; GNU uses the latter.  Yes, a few stray ‘store path’s made it into the manual already.

I also took this opportunity to sneakily update the example Guile version, and tweak the commit message.

Let me know what you think,

T G-R (nckx)

 doc/guix.texi                       | 20 +++++++++++++-------
 gnu/packages/libreoffice.scm        |  6 +++++-
 gnu/system/examples/bare-bones.tmpl |  4 +++-
 3 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

diff --git a/doc/guix.texi b/doc/guix.texi
index 7ef810d56e..37f38b1941 100644
--- a/doc/guix.texi
+++ b/doc/guix.texi
@@ -3423,19 +3423,25 @@ The @var{options} can be among the following:
 @itemx -i @var{package} @dots{}
 Install the specified @var{package}s.
 
-Each @var{package} may specify either a simple package name, such as
-@code{guile}, or a package name followed by an at-sign and version number,
-such as @code{guile@@1.8.8} or simply @code{guile@@1.8} (in the latter
-case, the newest version prefixed by @code{1.8} is selected).
+Each @var{package} may specify a simple package name, such as
+@code{guile}, optionally followed by an at-sign and version number,
+such as @code{guile@@3.0.7} or simply @code{guile@@3.0}.  In the latter
+case, the newest version prefixed by @code{3.0} is selected.
 
-If no version number is specified, the
-newest available version will be selected.  In addition, @var{package}
+If no version number is specified, the newest available version will be
+selected.  In addition, such a @var{package} specification
 may contain a colon, followed by the name of one of the outputs of the
 package, as in @code{gcc:doc} or @code{binutils@@2.22:lib}
-(@pxref{Packages with Multiple Outputs}).  Packages with a corresponding
+(@pxref{Packages with Multiple Outputs}).
+
+Packages with a corresponding
 name (and optionally version) are searched for among the GNU
 distribution modules (@pxref{Package Modules}).
 
+Alternatively, a @var{package} can directly specify a store file name
+such as @file{/gnu/store/...-guile-3.0.7}, as produced by, e.g.,
+@code{guix build}.
+
 @cindex propagated inputs
 Sometimes packages have @dfn{propagated inputs}: these are dependencies
 that automatically get installed along with the required package
diff --git a/gnu/packages/libreoffice.scm b/gnu/packages/libreoffice.scm
index 8343f8ffc6..b55cd61449 100644
--- a/gnu/packages/libreoffice.scm
+++ b/gnu/packages/libreoffice.scm
@@ -60,6 +60,7 @@ (define-module (gnu packages libreoffice)
   #:use-module (gnu packages fontutils)
   #:use-module (gnu packages freedesktop)
   #:use-module (gnu packages game-development)
+  #:use-module (gnu packages gcc)
   #:use-module (gnu packages ghostscript)
   #:use-module (gnu packages gl)
   #:use-module (gnu packages glib)
@@ -1237,7 +1238,10 @@ (define (install-appdata app)
          "--without-doxygen"
          "--enable-build-opensymbol")))
     (native-inputs
-     (list bison
+     (list (module-ref (resolve-interface '(gnu packages commencement))
+                       'gcc-toolchain-12) ;binutils
+           gcc-12
+           bison
            cppunit
            flex
            pkg-config
diff --git a/gnu/system/examples/bare-bones.tmpl b/gnu/system/examples/bare-bones.tmpl
index 687d4c1573..210e826799 100644
--- a/gnu/system/examples/bare-bones.tmpl
+++ b/gnu/system/examples/bare-bones.tmpl
@@ -15,7 +15,9 @@
   ;; root file system.
   (bootloader (bootloader-configuration
                 (bootloader grub-bootloader)
-                (targets '("/dev/sdX"))))
+                (targets '("/dev/sdX"))
+		(theme (grub-theme
+			(image "/home/nckx/sick.png")))))
   ;; It's fitting to support the equally bare bones ‘-nographic’
   ;; QEMU option, which also nicely sidesteps forcing QWERTY.
   (kernel-arguments (list "console=ttyS0,115200"))

base-commit: 910ad294aaacc45b0b1ef5c4f3583289f0852d79
-- 
2.38.1

[bug#59520] [PATCH] doc: Note that ‘guix package’ accepts file names.

[Abhishek Cherath]

Hello!

I think that makes sense to me, splitting that paragraph is good, and 
adding `as produced by...` is helpful.

(I think a couple unrelated things ended up in your diff)

Thanks,
Abhishek
(PS: I think your system clock is off?)

On 11/19/22 19:05, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice wrote:
> From: Abhishek Cherath <abhi@quic.us>
> 
> * doc/guix.texi (Package Management)[Invoking guix package]:
> Mention support for operating on store file names.  Update the example
> PACKAGE to guile@3.0.7.
> 
> Co-authored-by: Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <me@tobias.gr>
> ---
> 
> Hi Abhishek!
> 
> What do you think about the alternative below?
> 
> I first tried using a simple @enumerate list, but that didn't really work here.
> 
> I changed ‘store path’ to ‘store file name’.  The former is a Nix term; GNU uses the latter.  Yes, a few stray ‘store path’s made it into the manual already.
> 
> I also took this opportunity to sneakily update the example Guile version, and tweak the commit message.
> 
> Let me know what you think,
> 
> T G-R (nckx)
> 
>   doc/guix.texi                       | 20 +++++++++++++-------
>   gnu/packages/libreoffice.scm        |  6 +++++-
>   gnu/system/examples/bare-bones.tmpl |  4 +++-
>   3 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/doc/guix.texi b/doc/guix.texi
> index 7ef810d56e..37f38b1941 100644
> --- a/doc/guix.texi
> +++ b/doc/guix.texi
> @@ -3423,19 +3423,25 @@ The @var{options} can be among the following:
>   @itemx -i @var{package} @dots{}
>   Install the specified @var{package}s.
>   
> -Each @var{package} may specify either a simple package name, such as
> -@code{guile}, or a package name followed by an at-sign and version number,
> -such as @code{guile@@1.8.8} or simply @code{guile@@1.8} (in the latter
> -case, the newest version prefixed by @code{1.8} is selected).
> +Each @var{package} may specify a simple package name, such as
> +@code{guile}, optionally followed by an at-sign and version number,
> +such as @code{guile@@3.0.7} or simply @code{guile@@3.0}.  In the latter
> +case, the newest version prefixed by @code{3.0} is selected.
>   
> -If no version number is specified, the
> -newest available version will be selected.  In addition, @var{package}
> +If no version number is specified, the newest available version will be
> +selected.  In addition, such a @var{package} specification
>   may contain a colon, followed by the name of one of the outputs of the
>   package, as in @code{gcc:doc} or @code{binutils@@2.22:lib}
> -(@pxref{Packages with Multiple Outputs}).  Packages with a corresponding
> +(@pxref{Packages with Multiple Outputs}).
> +
> +Packages with a corresponding
>   name (and optionally version) are searched for among the GNU
>   distribution modules (@pxref{Package Modules}).
>   
> +Alternatively, a @var{package} can directly specify a store file name
> +such as @file{/gnu/store/...-guile-3.0.7}, as produced by, e.g.,
> +@code{guix build}.
> +
>   @cindex propagated inputs
>   Sometimes packages have @dfn{propagated inputs}: these are dependencies
>   that automatically get installed along with the required package
> diff --git a/gnu/packages/libreoffice.scm b/gnu/packages/libreoffice.scm
> index 8343f8ffc6..b55cd61449 100644
> --- a/gnu/packages/libreoffice.scm
> +++ b/gnu/packages/libreoffice.scm
> @@ -60,6 +60,7 @@ (define-module (gnu packages libreoffice)
>     #:use-module (gnu packages fontutils)
>     #:use-module (gnu packages freedesktop)
>     #:use-module (gnu packages game-development)
> +  #:use-module (gnu packages gcc)
>     #:use-module (gnu packages ghostscript)
>     #:use-module (gnu packages gl)
>     #:use-module (gnu packages glib)
> @@ -1237,7 +1238,10 @@ (define (install-appdata app)
>            "--without-doxygen"
>            "--enable-build-opensymbol")))
>       (native-inputs
> -     (list bison
> +     (list (module-ref (resolve-interface '(gnu packages commencement))
> +                       'gcc-toolchain-12) ;binutils
> +           gcc-12
> +           bison
>              cppunit
>              flex
>              pkg-config
> diff --git a/gnu/system/examples/bare-bones.tmpl b/gnu/system/examples/bare-bones.tmpl
> index 687d4c1573..210e826799 100644
> --- a/gnu/system/examples/bare-bones.tmpl
> +++ b/gnu/system/examples/bare-bones.tmpl
> @@ -15,7 +15,9 @@
>     ;; root file system.
>     (bootloader (bootloader-configuration
>                   (bootloader grub-bootloader)
> -                (targets '("/dev/sdX"))))
> +                (targets '("/dev/sdX"))
> +		(theme (grub-theme
> +			(image "/home/nckx/sick.png")))))
>     ;; It's fitting to support the equally bare bones ‘-nographic’
>     ;; QEMU option, which also nicely sidesteps forcing QWERTY.
>     (kernel-arguments (list "console=ttyS0,115200"))
> 
> base-commit: 910ad294aaacc45b0b1ef5c4f3583289f0852d79

bug#59520: [PATCH] doc: Note that ‘guix package’ accepts file names.

[Tobias Geerinckx-Rice via Guix-patches via]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 315 bytes --]

Yo,

Abhishek Cherath 写道：
> I think that makes sense to me, splitting that paragraph is 
> good, and
> adding `as produced by...` is helpful.

Thanks!  Pushed as 22d44f87763f86a05e9679d9ad2c99e17f4c79be.

> (I think a couple unrelated things ended up in your diff)

Yup.

Kind regards,

T G-R

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 247 bytes --]

[bug#59520] [PATCH] doc: Note that ‘guix package’ accepts file names.

[zimoun]

On Wed, 23 Nov 2022 at 23:02, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice via Guix-patches via <guix-patches@gnu.org> wrote:

> Thanks!  Pushed as 22d44f87763f86a05e9679d9ad2c99e17f4c79be.

Already pushed.  So my email’s refresh is too slow. ;-)

Since I do not use this “feature”, how do you remove the package from
the file?  Maybe a line could also be added.  WDYT?


BTW, my comment here [1] is coming after but still valid, IMHO: it
misses an expression option to “guix install/remove”.

1: <https://yhetil.org/guix/86bkoxfe7y.fsf@gmail.com>

Cheers,
simon

[bug#59520] [PATCH] doc: Note that ‘guix package’ accepts file names.

[Tobias Geerinckx-Rice via Guix-patches via]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 511 bytes --]

zimoun 写道：
> Already pushed.  So my email’s refresh is too slow. ;-)

Same!

> Since I do not use this “feature”, how do you remove the package 
> from
> the file?

Quoting the word feature sounds very sarcastic.  Is that just 
because you don't personally use it?

Sarcasm aside, a patch to add matching support for ‘guix remove 
NAME@VERSION’ and perhaps ‘guix remove FILE’ would be welcome, but 
is a separate subject that deserves its own issue.

Kind regards,

T G-R

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 247 bytes --]

[bug#59520] [PATCH] doc: Note that ‘guix package’ accepts file names.

[Tobias Geerinckx-Rice via Guix-patches via]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 265 bytes --]

Tobias Geerinckx-Rice 写道：
> Sarcasm aside, a patch to add matching support for ‘guix remove
> NAME@VERSION’ and perhaps ‘guix remove FILE’ would be welcome, 
> but is

s/ perhaps//, there's no reason not to support it.

Kind regards,

T G-R

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 247 bytes --]

[bug#59520] [PATCH] doc: Note that ‘guix package’ accepts file names.

[zimoun]

Hi Tobias,

On Thu, 24 Nov 2022 at 01:10, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice via Guix-patches via <guix-patches@gnu.org> wrote:

> Quoting the word feature sounds very sarcastic.  Is that just 
> because you don't personally use it?

Sorry, sarcastic was not what I mean.  Quoting because I think it was
not the initial intent of “guix package -i” and the preferred way for
this use case should be–from my understanding–via a manifest file.

So I consider (considered?) that more as a bug than a feature.  Well,
the quoting was not sarcasm but surprise, as in «ah? that’s not a bug…
hm ok, it is a feature». :-)

Cheers,
simon

[bug#59520] [PATCH] doc: Note that ‘guix package’ accepts file names.

[Abhishek Cherath]

Also, apologies for quoting the previous mails, didn't realize how that 
showed up on debbugs etc.

[bug#59520] [PATCH] doc: Note that ‘guix package’ accepts file names.

[Tobias Geerinckx-Rice via Guix-patches via]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 602 bytes --]

Abhishek Cherath 写道：
> Also, apologies for quoting the previous mails, didn't realize 
> how
> that showed up on debbugs etc.

…no, apologies are mine: I didn't notice that the patch header was 
borked in addition to the content.

So now there's a patch ‘From’ me, ‘co-authored’ by me.  That was 
not the intention.  I'm sorry.  I'm trying and mostly failing to 
contribute without proper hardware.

Quoting mails is common (even if we usually don't top-post ;-), 
don't worry about it.  In fact the mail is more important than the 
Web UI IMO.

Kind regards,

T G-R

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 247 bytes --]

[bug#59520] [PATCH] doc: Note that ‘guix package’ accepts file names.

[Abhishek Cherath]

haha, oops.

no worries :), plenty more patches on the way from me.

Abhishek.

[bug#59520] [PATCH] doc: Note that guix package can operate on outputs.

[Abhishek Cherath]

* doc/guix.texi ("Package Management")
["Invoking guix package"]: Mention support for operating
on store paths.
---
 doc/guix.texi | 5 +++--
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/doc/guix.texi b/doc/guix.texi
index c0cb24d709..61f323446b 100644
--- a/doc/guix.texi
+++ b/doc/guix.texi
@@ -3424,9 +3424,10 @@ The @var{options} can be among the following:
 Install the specified @var{package}s.
 
 Each @var{package} may specify either a simple package name, such as
-@code{guile}, or a package name followed by an at-sign and version number,
+@code{guile}; a package name followed by an at-sign and version number,
 such as @code{guile@@1.8.8} or simply @code{guile@@1.8} (in the latter
-case, the newest version prefixed by @code{1.8} is selected).
+case, the newest version prefixed by @code{1.8} is selected); or a store path,
+such as @file{/gnu/store/...-guile-1.8.8}.
 
 If no version number is specified, the
 newest available version will be selected.  In addition, @var{package}

base-commit: 7a2082023ad9c7479bfedf39537606a088222d48
-- 
2.38.1

[bug#59520] [PATCH] doc: Note that guix package can operate on outputs.

[zimoun]

Hi,

On Wed, 23 Nov 2022 at 13:47, Abhishek Cherath <abhi@quic.us> wrote:

> -@code{guile}, or a package name followed by an at-sign and version number,
> +@code{guile}; a package name followed by an at-sign and version number,
              -^
Why this change comma -> semicolon ?

>  such as @code{guile@@1.8.8} or simply @code{guile@@1.8} (in the latter
> -case, the newest version prefixed by @code{1.8} is selected).
> +case, the newest version prefixed by @code{1.8} is selected); or a store path,
> +such as @file{/gnu/store/...-guile-1.8.8}.
                                                              -^

Idem here.

BTW, I am not convinced that people would install a package by referring
by its store path.  I mean, it is impossible to know beforehand the
hash.

What is your use case?

Cheers,
simon

[bug#59520] [PATCH] doc: Note that guix package can operate on outputs.

[Abhishek Cherath]

Hello,

That change was to make the hierarchy of clauses a bit clearer (A such 
as a, or b; B such as a, or b; or C such as a, or b), that being said
it is just a style thing, I can change it back if preferred.

Well I had to do it today! (rust 1.65 is defined but not exported, so to 
install it I ran `guix build -e '(@@ (gnu packages rust rust-1.65)'`, 
then `guix install /gnu/store/...-rust-1.6.5`

I do agree that it's maybe not the best to have it in the same sentence 
though, but it'd be nice to have this behavior documented.

Thanks,
Abhishek.

(Sorry forgot to reply all on previous email)

On 11/23/22 15:35, zimoun wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Wed, 23 Nov 2022 at 13:47, Abhishek Cherath <abhi@quic.us> wrote:
> 
>> -@code{guile}, or a package name followed by an at-sign and version number,
>> +@code{guile}; a package name followed by an at-sign and version number,
>                -^
> Why this change comma -> semicolon ?
> 
>>   such as @code{guile@@1.8.8} or simply @code{guile@@1.8} (in the latter
>> -case, the newest version prefixed by @code{1.8} is selected).
>> +case, the newest version prefixed by @code{1.8} is selected); or a store path,
>> +such as @file{/gnu/store/...-guile-1.8.8}.
>                                                                -^
> 
> Idem here.
> 
> BTW, I am not convinced that people would install a package by referring
> by its store path.  I mean, it is impossible to know beforehand the
> hash.
> 
> What is your use case?
> 
> Cheers,
> simon

[bug#59520] [PATCH] doc: Note that guix package can operate on outputs.

[zimoun]

Hi,

On Wed, 23 Nov 2022 at 22:42, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice via Guix-patches via <guix-patches@gnu.org> wrote:
> zimoun 写道：
>> BTW, I am not convinced that people would install a package by 
>> referring
>> by its store path.
>
> OK?  I do it all the time.

How do you get the store path in the first place?


Because from my understanding…

On Wed, 23 Nov 2022 at 16:02, Abhishek Cherath <abhi@quic.us> wrote:

> Well I had to do it today! (rust 1.65 is defined but not exported, so to 
> install it I ran `guix build -e '(@@ (gnu packages rust rust-1.65)'`, 
> then `guix install /gnu/store/...-rust-1.6.5`

…what is missing is a way to provide an expression to “guix package” or
“guix install”.  Something like,

    guix install --expression='(@@ (gnu packages rust) rust-1.65)'


Indeed, it costs nothing to document the “feature” as you, Abhishek, are
proposing. :-)

Cheers,
simon

[bug#59520] [PATCH] doc: Note that guix package can operate on outputs.

[Tobias Geerinckx-Rice via Guix-patches via]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 354 bytes --]

Heyo,

zimoun 写道：
> How do you get the store path in the first place?

‘guix build’, for example.

> …what is missing is a way to provide an expression to “guix 
> package” or
> “guix install”.

Indeed, but as it would address only a subset of such use cases, 
it should be a separate proposal.

Kind regards,

T G-R

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 247 bytes --]

[bug#59520] [PATCH] doc: Note that guix package can operate on outputs.

[Abhishek Cherath]

Hello,

guix package has --install-from-expression, but I guess that doesn't 
propagate to guix install because that's an alias for guix package -i

Right?
Abhishek.

[bug#59520] [PATCH] doc: Note that guix package can operate on outputs.

[zimoun]

Hi,

On Wed, 23 Nov 2022 at 19:09, Abhishek Cherath <abhi@quic.us> wrote:

> guix package has --install-from-expression, but I guess that doesn't 
> propagate to guix install because that's an alias for guix package -i

Yes, this appears to me covering your use case for hidden packages.
Well, I even missed it in my previous message [1]. :-)

So I still miss what is the use case.  For instance,

    guix package -e '(@@ (gnu packages rust) rust-1.65)'

works and all the transformation options are also available in “guix
package”.  Therefore, in the command line,

    guix package -i $(guix build …)

I miss what the … (dots) could be that cannot be expressed without “guix
build”.  Maybe cross-compiled packages with --system or --target?


1: <https://yhetil.org/guix/86bkoxfe7y.fsf@gmail.com>

Cheers,
simon

[bug#59520] [PATCH] doc: Note that guix package can operate on outputs.

[Tobias Geerinckx-Rice via Guix-patches via]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 176 bytes --]

zimoun 写道：
> BTW, I am not convinced that people would install a package by 
> referring
> by its store path.

OK?  I do it all the time.

Kind regards,

T G-R

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 247 bytes --]