Ludovic Courtès writes: > Roel Janssen skribis: > >> Ludovic Courtès writes: >> >>> Hi! >>> >>> Alex Kost skribis: >>> >>>> Roel Janssen (2016-07-23 18:11 +0300) wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear Guix, >>>>> >>>>> For some time now, running `guix package --dry-run --upgrade' results in >>>>> build actions involving grafting. For a dry-run, I find that really >>>>> odd. I believe the correct behavior should be what can be achieved >>>>> with: `guix package --dry-run --no-grafts --upgrade'. >>>> >>>> I'm totally agree with this; nowadays I always use --dry-run with >>>> --no-grafts option. >>> >>> Same here… >>> >>>> As a user I expect that --dry-run means no building at all. >>>> >>>> BTW it's not just about ‘guix package --dry-run --upgrade’, it relates >>>> to all commands, for example ‘guix build --dry-run foo’, etc. >>>> >>>> OTOH, if a future ‘--dry-run’ would mean what ‘--dry-run --no-grafts’ >>>> means now, than how to achieve what ‘--dry-run’ means now? Or rather: >>>> does anyone use just --dry-run (without --no-grafts)? Is it really >>>> useful? >>> >>> In theory it could be useful for ‘guix build’, since it’s a “low level” >>> tool and people using it may want to be able to distinguish between >>> grafted and non-grafted results. >>> >>> But honestly, I think changing ‘--dry-run’ to do ‘--dry-run --no-grafts’ >>> would be fine, and probably better than the current situation. >> >> Could you provide some insight in where I should be looking to att the >> check to 'graft?'? > > Everything that relates to command-line argument processing is in (guix > scripts build), for the common options, and then in each (guix scripts > *) module. > > Roughly, the change I suggest would be along these lines: > > > However, since --dry-run is processed separately in each command, this > change should probably be duplicated. > > Would you like to look into it? > > Something similar should be done in the Emacs interface. > > Thanks, > Ludo’. Sorry for the delay. The attached patch applies your idea to all subcommands that have a --dry-run option. Is this what you had in mind? Kind regards, Roel Janssen