From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:60088)
 by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1)
 (envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1jKIwh-0005hX-Kj
 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Fri, 03 Apr 2020 05:49:04 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
 (envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1jKIwg-0002r5-GP
 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Fri, 03 Apr 2020 05:49:03 -0400
Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:57868)
 by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16)
 (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>)
 id 1jKIwg-0002qt-DB
 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Fri, 03 Apr 2020 05:49:02 -0400
Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2)
 (envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1jKIwg-0007Ev-AK
 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Fri, 03 Apr 2020 05:49:02 -0400
Subject: [bug#40373] [PATCH] guix: new command "guix run-script"
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.40373.B40373.158590730227707@debbugs.gnu.org>
From: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= <ludo@gnu.org>
References: <m1d08rmh6g.fsf@khs-macbook.home> <875zeiudjm.fsf@gnu.org>
 <m1a73umkbw.fsf@khs-macbook.home>
 <CAJ3okZ386b7bo7ME+CCJ4K=8QnCtq5F4cmhtONYAFnNGEE=BUw@mail.gmail.com>
 <m1r1x6kz3l.fsf@khs-macbook.home> <m1eet59bcp.fsf@khs-macbook.home>
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2020 11:48:11 +0200
In-Reply-To: <m1eet59bcp.fsf@khs-macbook.home> (Konrad Hinsen's message of
 "Fri, 03 Apr 2020 11:17:58 +0200")
Message-ID: <87r1x4lx2c.fsf@gnu.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
List-Id: <guix-patches.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-patches>,
 <mailto:guix-patches-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-patches>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-patches@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-patches-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-patches>,
 <mailto:guix-patches-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org
Sender: "Guix-patches" <guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org>
To: Konrad Hinsen <konrad.hinsen@fastmail.net>
Cc: 40373@debbugs.gnu.org, zimoun <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com>

Hi Konrad,

Konrad Hinsen <konrad.hinsen@fastmail.net> skribis:

> Konrad Hinsen <konrad.hinsen@fastmail.net> writes:
>
>> Could we go for "guix guile" and make it option-compatible with plain
>> Guile as much as possible? Just an idea, I am not sure it's a good one!
>> Guile can already be a pain in a shebang line.
>
> After some exploration, that kind of compatibility doesn't seem worth
> the effort.
>
> I will send another patch that implements Simon's proposal:
>
>  - New command "guix run" that extends "guix repl" by an optional
>    file argument for running a script.

=E2=80=9Cguix run=E2=80=9D was sort of reserved for something else:

  https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/help-guix/2018-01/msg00118.html

The idea is still floating around so perhaps we should keep that name.

>  - "guix repl" becomes an alias for "guix run" (and could in the
>    long run be declared obsolete).

I=E2=80=99m worried about a possible increase of the deprecation rate.  I
understand the rationale, I think it makes sense, but still, I=E2=80=99m not
sure we need to deprecate =E2=80=9Cguix repl=E2=80=9D already.

In fact, since it=E2=80=99s used by inferiors, we must pay extra attention =
to
keep it as-is as much as possible or we=E2=80=99ll make communication betwe=
en
old and new Guixes difficult.

Thoughts?

Thanks,
Ludo=E2=80=99.