From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: =?utf-8?Q?Ludovic_Court=C3=A8s?= <ludo@gnu.org>
Subject: Re: 01/01: services: Add =?utf-8?Q?=E2=80=98=2Fusr=2Fbin=2Fenv?=
 =?utf-8?Q?=E2=80=99?= special file.
Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2019 10:13:00 +0200
Message-ID: <87woeh28hf.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <20190906102509.28951.2772@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org>
 <20190906102510.002BE21324@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org>
 <87d0gdbtji.fsf@cbaines.net> <87mufhwhc6.fsf@nckx>
 <87d0gcgodz.fsf@devup.no> <8736h8uh05.fsf@elephly.net>
 <87h85m1lyp.fsf@gnu.org>
 <20190909070144.GA5717@PhantoNv4ArchGx.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:50250)
 by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1)
 (envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1i7EnJ-0001Jf-2F
 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 09 Sep 2019 04:13:07 -0400
In-Reply-To: <20190909070144.GA5717@PhantoNv4ArchGx.localdomain> (Bengt
 Richter's message of "Mon, 9 Sep 2019 00:01:44 -0700")
List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution."
 <guix-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-devel>,
 <mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-devel>,
 <mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: "Guix-devel" <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
To: Bengt Richter <bokr@bokr.com>
Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org

Hi Bengt,

Bengt Richter <bokr@bokr.com> skribis:

> On +2019-09-09 00:07:10 +0200, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrote:

[...]

>> Like I wrote in <https://issues.guix.gnu.org/issue/35910#2> and in the
>> message it refers to, although I was initially mildly reluctant to
>> having /usr/bin/env by default, I=E2=80=99ve come to think that lack of
>> /usr/bin/env is a gratuitous annoyance=E2=80=94not to me of course, but =
to
>> newcomers as we=E2=80=99ve seen repeatedly, be they seasoned GNU/Linux u=
sers or
>> not.
>>
>> With that in mind, adding /usr/bin/env by default is probably a good mov=
e.
>>
>
> Hi Ludo,
>
> I may be one of those (over-) seasoned (past best-before) users you menti=
on :)
> -- but with all due respect, is this not a compromise of the fundamental
> idea of guix _transactional_ package management?

No it=E2=80=99s not.  It really doesn=E2=80=99t change anything.

First, you can always opt out=E2=80=94the discussion was about whether it s=
hould
remain opt-in, or whether it should become opt-out.

Second, and more importantly: packages (=E2=80=9Cderivations=E2=80=9D) are =
still built
in an isolated environment that does not and will never contain
/usr/bin/env.

Sorry I=E2=80=99m not replying to your other points now, but I hope it clar=
ifies
things!

Thanks,
Ludo=E2=80=99.