From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andy Wingo Subject: Re: Add guix install command Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2015 14:01:31 +0200 Message-ID: <87wpx7gvdw.fsf@igalia.com> References: <87pp32ulfj.fsf@igalia.com> <87614rsfpn.fsf@gmail.com> <87h9obpjps.fsf@elephly.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:34377) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZNgLm-0007zR-Hl for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 07 Aug 2015 08:02:15 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZNgLj-0005Kt-CW for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 07 Aug 2015 08:02:14 -0400 Received: from pb-sasl1.int.icgroup.com ([208.72.237.25]:59843 helo=sasl.smtp.pobox.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZNgLi-0005Ba-Ur for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 07 Aug 2015 08:02:11 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87h9obpjps.fsf@elephly.net> (Ricardo Wurmus's message of "Fri, 07 Aug 2015 10:48:47 +0200") 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+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Ricardo Wurmus Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org, Alex Kost On Fri 07 Aug 2015 10:48, Ricardo Wurmus writes: >>> Attached is a patch to implement "guix install". It just copies over >>> functionality from guix package. We could refactor more but I would >>> start with this as it is; when things need changes is the time to >>> refactor, at least for me. What do you think? :) >> >> I don't mind the new commands, but I think this patch is unacceptable >> because of the huge code duplicating. Sorry if it was sounded rude, I > > Would it be possible to implement this with stubs for =E2=80=9Cguix insta= ll=E2=80=9D and > =E2=80=9Cguix search=E2=80=9D that serve as mere aliases to =E2=80=9Cguix= package -i=E2=80=9D and =E2=80=9Cguix > package -s=E2=80=9D? > > I think it would be nice to have these commands as long as they are just > aliases and don=E2=80=99t duplicate code. In the case of "guix install", yes. However what would you show for "guix install --help"? What would error messages show: "guix package" or "guix install"? Would the user perceive it as a separate command or would the fact that it is an alias be visible to the user? I have a lot of opinions of course ;) but IMO for a user it's better for it to present as a separate command. Why? Because understanding all of "guix package" (or simply paging it back into human memory) is harder than understanding all of "guix install". Describing "guix install" is easier than describing "guix package". Also FWIW the equivalent of "guix package --install-from-expression foo" is, as of this patch, "guix install --from-expression foo". Reads nicer to me but dunno, might be a point of conflict. For search, I chose to default to a more terse format (--short rather than --recutils). Also the --recutils and --short options probably don't make sense as arguments to "guix package", at least not named how they are. Basically it seems to me that "guix package" is doing too much as it is. Dunno how you see it though. I am new here :) Cheers, Andy