From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp0.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:303:e16b::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms8.migadu.com with LMTPS id iEdnHv5QrGXf0QAAqHPOHw:P1 (envelope-from ) for ; Sun, 21 Jan 2024 00:02:22 +0100 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:303:e16b::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp0.migadu.com with LMTPS id iEdnHv5QrGXf0QAAqHPOHw (envelope-from ) for ; Sun, 21 Jan 2024 00:02:22 +0100 X-Envelope-To: larch@yhetil.org Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=pass header.d=retrospec.tv header.s=fm2 header.b=IUF0mfd6; dkim=pass header.d=messagingengine.com header.s=fm3 header.b="d afAUgC"; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of "guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom="guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org"; dmarc=none ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yhetil.org; s=key1; t=1705791742; h=from:from:sender:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:list-id:list-help: list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-post:dkim-signature; bh=jkL8XrZHZcmXJ419pH6docfl5BsQ3/Z/XqTIFnXfaEQ=; b=jRgmXy5ojLeR8LMf6puY2f/bfld2mOuuvx5LKgm5bit3pL7Vw0Ld2ovmTqEifzgIyZttOP vtgfNYw1dXEfkDBgsQzp3WSNK3kHycAPhJQN+wlrk1B9OwVB5twhHLUB+tyc8xxXU7F4kQ gQRtWzMuxcSCm55CSDfmRi5w7UVyiyKm5bTFi+kqzFO/twuPRNempDeHLtVlz+I3wDFF+E JskZBf/jfW8MH9a+BBt8ldOU+Rd45cMxm+uAcMIQbp91ThtWPkY7DFXYrLvhN1Tb+n7IvL /VFNWqUUv3jXzs2zRaQpJ0nR/PWzO19EKYxPiI68Qgtd+gbEx6lmhKEfCy2Xow== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=pass header.d=retrospec.tv header.s=fm2 header.b=IUF0mfd6; dkim=pass header.d=messagingengine.com header.s=fm3 header.b="d afAUgC"; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of "guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom="guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org"; dmarc=none ARC-Seal: i=1; s=key1; d=yhetil.org; t=1705791742; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=dXSzDVULRH8ARTgU1eieoUxwZYD8W9nCcxQiRXM/JofkZgwJ5SbHZED6hwDc6Ei8y45oHA tsSYrClqBB47yWE6guG5ArUwonkB01Ge43gXa6fbg+tb6lkCHqN6DTxH8DQhdshpPht4DS rqIrNRrpjnLvC/g1tqYlCkIHfcZqe8bpfzWftTPkwooq1+muPzRp0ZxskINs4W0VCGVQy2 04Hh86aESEf5Vhi6IQ1xEjpVX85V9d7Z9N8gSaOLxBeF9f5L0KFVcJzJ3ZgBET/pDJmrgo qhHlemurgpye1+HLt00vbmRkKW2DGM0LWX/wEEDNjQqCM2PR9feQ+UExZNpDug== Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB22E52243 for ; Sun, 21 Jan 2024 00:02:18 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rRKLe-0008K2-QQ; Sat, 20 Jan 2024 18:01:58 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rRKLb-0008I4-0H for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 20 Jan 2024 18:01:55 -0500 Received: from wout4-smtp.messagingengine.com ([64.147.123.20]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rRKLY-0002yM-MS for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 20 Jan 2024 18:01:54 -0500 Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F5263200A13 for ; Sat, 20 Jan 2024 18:01:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Sat, 20 Jan 2024 18:01:49 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=retrospec.tv; h= cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:date:date :from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm2; t=1705791708; x=1705878108; bh=jkL8XrZHZcmXJ419pH6docfl5BsQ3/Z/XqTIFnXfaEQ=; b= IUF0mfd62o5bp3aKU5OUKyOBjpkc6gFjbkKUm4vFuuPftgOQ+Eaxx2o9Q8UJSWeb VMSiHlLgw5SATDa4UE1teN7gjzc9oLcRQB5EEzHe4are0Nr5gzELhqCJ3aHe+XFJ l6k+rAvsqRmFjPMnjqof+x1P/RJ2Du3n2q2KghwEiNLl2dx/1Bm8vYEDs0HU06hE ZdBXE5HLIPzjcNXBoeFcLg91UtTHeUEAI/kuyFHERfzxiQfYNo4DokvlmfCJxs1Z WTBDpj6DzCIvA10zvv38n8fjjhSCGkqaEPpuxV3qR0gKrh3EHGaVjf+dWoFvINnK 4seQz1fKqCqGK8LLXDLLxQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from :in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :reply-to:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy :x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t=1705791708; x= 1705878108; bh=jkL8XrZHZcmXJ419pH6docfl5BsQ3/Z/XqTIFnXfaEQ=; b=d afAUgChutCnE7CTB571+SPfKIFmsDyay/VbHRJHKxpTYhHg3VOqCAmp36xxG950V MowUISOh5mgPUsirUKU2rM+hYb6tyhmL/eBvWzujujEJ37VIIbI/Ibb6u3ZJP2qA yH/SUEb33VHoSNzDz6Fa0ZIExzmTUpnshLmLewInSwIjnbqnE/nTCfCmXSl/DXbP Xx9CYvBGujX/TiPuAPrgqfIitKVw/5f4z2duzgbKI6R51DY/vfYDZkmNRiaIlPtx ryt6Q+/jZ2mP2Oio5sVK3ZcV87HnJ/MINqt2UZCm8Rl0FLO7ZCqsZk/MKuQBrDM/ OuCg/FiGWJv2sHnmsE3Rg== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvkedrvdekfedgtdefucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpehffgfhvffuffgjkfggtgfgsehtqh ertddtreejnecuhfhrohhmpefkrghnucfguhhrvgcuoehirghnsehrvghtrhhoshhpvggt rdhtvheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepveduueevgfdufedtheekgeekiedtiedvlefgje fhvdfggeeiuddtleduieelgedunecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghm pehmrghilhhfrhhomhepihgrnhesrhgvthhrohhsphgvtgdrthhv X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: id9014242:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA for ; Sat, 20 Jan 2024 18:01:48 -0500 (EST) References: <87il3upczg.fsf@retrospec.tv> <87o7dmgsgm.fsf@zancanaro.id.au> User-agent: mu4e 1.10.8; emacs 29.1 From: Ian Eure To: guix-devel Subject: Re: Guix CLI, thoughts and suggestions Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2024 14:50:56 -0800 In-reply-to: <87o7dmgsgm.fsf@zancanaro.id.au> Message-ID: <87ttn7txra.fsf@retrospec.tv> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Received-SPF: pass client-ip=64.147.123.20; envelope-from=ian@retrospec.tv; helo=wout4-smtp.messagingengine.com X-Spam_score_int: -27 X-Spam_score: -2.8 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.8 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: guix-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list 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+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_IN X-Migadu-Country: US X-Migadu-Spam-Score: -10.36 X-Migadu-Scanner: mx13.migadu.com X-Spam-Score: -10.36 X-Migadu-Queue-Id: BB22E52243 X-TUID: HkYX4n6jrGno Hi Carlo, Thank you for the thoughtful reply. Carlo Zancanaro writes: > Hi Ian, > > Much of what you've written is fair, and I'm sure that Guix's=20 > commands > could be better organised. I'm not really involved in Guix=20 > development, > but I think there are two "inconsistencies" that you've=20 > mentioned which > can be explained. > > On Mon, Jan 15 2024, Ian Eure wrote: >> Some examples of where I think Guix could do better. This is=20 >> an >> illustrative list, not an exhaustive one. >> >> Inconsistent organization >> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D >> >> Most package-related commands are under `guix package', but=20 >> many are >> sibling commands. Examples are `guix size', `guix lint', `guix=20 >> hash', >> etc. > > I think the real inconsistency here is that `guix package' is=20 > poorly > named. This command really operates on profiles, and performs=20 > operations > (install, remove, list, etc.) on those profiles. Packages are=20 > given as > arguments to this command. > > The other commands operate on, and show the properties of,=20 > packages. > Similarly with `guix build'. > Yes, I agree the behavior makes a bit more sense from that=20 viewpoint. However, it does have non-profile-related things in=20 it, such as `--show' and `--search'. This is getitng into another=20 thing I=E2=80=99ve seen a bit of, which is overloaded commands -- ones=20 that do multiple things that are unrelated or tangentally related.=20 But, I didn=E2=80=99t have a good example, and my message was long enough=20 already. >> Inconsistency between verbs and options >> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > >> ... For example, installing a package is `guix package -i foo'=20 >> rather >> than `guix package install foo', removing is `guix package -r=20 >> foo' >> rather than `guix package remove foo', and listing installed=20 >> packages >> is `guix package -I' rather than `guix package installed' (or >> similar). > > The specific example of `guix package' might be explained by=20 > considering > it as a single transaction to update the profile. The command=20 > `guix > package' really says "perform a transaction on the profile", and=20 > the > options are the commands in the transaction. Since there can be=20 > multiple > commands, and the command names look like package names, they=20 > are > provided as options. > > This doesn't fully explain the behaviour. In particular the=20 > example you > give: > >> This means that users can express commands which *seem* like=20 >> they >> should work, but do not. For example `guix package -i emacs -r >> emacs-pgtk -I' represents a command to 1) install emacs 2)=20 >> remove >> emacs-pgtk 3) list installed packages (which would verify the=20 >> previous >> two operations occurred). ... > > seems reasonable to have working within the view of `guix=20 > package' as a > transactional operation. > I agree that this would make sense, but my understanding is that=20 `guix package' doesn=E2=80=99t work like that -- it only performs the=20 final operation in the list. IMO, it should either do=20 *everything* the commands specify, or print an error and take no=20 action. > It's also worth noting that there are convenience shortcuts in=20 > `guix > install' and `guix remove'. > >> It seems like a lot of work to change, and backwards=20 >> compatibility >> also is an issue. > > I see backwards compatibility as the main issue here. There was=20 > a lot of > discussion preceding the inclusion of `guix shell', because of=20 > the > prospect of breaking existing tutorials/documentation floating=20 > around on > the internet. This is an even bigger concern for a more drastic > reorganisation of the CLI. > I agree, I don=E2=80=99t think the situation can be improved without=20 finding a solution to preserve BC. But, I didn=E2=80=99t think it was=20 worth making detailed plans for any of this before gauging whether=20 the problem was one broadly considered to be worth solving. =E2=80=94 Ian