[bug#58583] [PATCH 0/1] scripts: package: Forbid installation of the guix package.

[Tobias Geerinckx-Rice via Guix-patches via <guix-patches@gnu.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1841 bytes --]

Heyo,

Thanks for the clarifications!  I hope you don't feel like you 
were dragged into a discussion against your will.  If so, I really 
do apologise.

I think all intentions here were the opposite: to make sure that 
even a ‘weak’ opinion was properly considered.  It might turn out 
to be more robust than the ‘strong’ ones ;-)  That's one of Guix's 
strengths IMO.

I'll not ask further questions below.

zimoun 写道：
> Therefore, why do we provide the ’guix’ package in the first 
> place?

That ‘guix install guix’ is an error does *not* imply that the 
mere existence of the ‘guix’ package is an error.  I think we can 
keep those separate.

>> How does one continue to use guix *as a package manager*, 
>> having 
>> now silently broken ‘guix pull’?
>
> There is a confusion here, maybe?  Guix is also a Guile library 
> and that
> library is designed around package management.

Right.  My problem is: I don't understand what's confusing about 
that fact, so it's hard to communicate effectively about what I 
don't see…

> Well, maybe instead the package ’guix’, it should be renamed
> ’guile-guix’ or ’guile-libguix’.

That would be going against the spirit of our own naming rules, 
unless you mean that it should be a ‘library-only’ variant that 
lacks /bin/guix.

Now *that* I do find mildly confusing—but only because it's 
starting to get complex :-)  Do we then put /bin/guix in 
‘guix-libguix:bin’?  Or a second package?  Etc.

So I'd rather keep ‘guix’ available as ‘guix’.

> Personally, I do not consider ~/.guix-profile more special.

Nor do I.  I agree that ‘-p ~/.guix-profile’ shouldn't be magical, 
or I would have suggested an approach different from ('s from the 
start.

Kind regards,

T G-R

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 247 bytes --]