From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pierre Neidhardt Subject: Re: Store channel specification in profile Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2020 15:02:04 +0100 Message-ID: <87y2ubqwtf.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> References: <87blsyelgm.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <87tv69bezo.fsf@gnu.org> <87zhg1xvmo.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <874kx8gxh1.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <87blreasgd.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <87pnfpsgfx.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:58595) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ir0IH-00036M-4d for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 13 Jan 2020 09:02:14 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ir0IF-0006Pb-AL for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 13 Jan 2020 09:02:12 -0500 In-Reply-To: <87pnfpsgfx.fsf@gnu.org> 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-mx.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: Guix Devel --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, >> Questions: >> >> - Do manifests really need the store path?=20=20 >> - Same question about propagated-inputs. Aren't they already encoded in >> the package definition? Why repeating them here? > > This =E2=80=98manifest=E2=80=99 file exists mostly for one purpose: to al= low incremental > operations on a profile with =E2=80=98guix upgrade=E2=80=99, =E2=80=98gui= x install=E2=80=99, and so on. > If =E2=80=98--manifest=E2=80=99 were the only way to build a profile, thi= s =E2=80=98manifest=E2=80=99 > file would (almost) not be needed. (Actually it=E2=80=99s also needed for > =E2=80=98--list-installed=E2=80=99.) Makes sense. So what's the take-away of this thread? 1. Simon suggested to add options to convert the manifest to the user-friendly specification file (i.e. something compatible with the =2D-manifest option). What about this instead: systematically generate this "specification" file in every profile? This way no need for extra command line options, the work is already done for the user. "To reproduce a profile" would boil down to passing around this specification file. 2. On December 2, Simon mentioned Ludo's suggestion (from https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2019-11/msg00285.html) that we added a "guix channel" subcommand for channel management. Shall we open 2 bugs for these? =2D-=20 Pierre Neidhardt https://ambrevar.xyz/ --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEUPM+LlsMPZAEJKvom9z0l6S7zH8FAl4ceFwACgkQm9z0l6S7 zH8hpwf/T4g5UcXc95JlpreV3djBSECmy/UoUfregDe7rNEhhea6Sl0t/WMQQ0rR LibBTB6vo27/sGdR2/UVPzyuvx5iOFzWbPUhzV5v4XOj2T7G9xajNEMxM9N8GGDZ SLtQ9Dh04vQYnd5RddjU3cU5Y3zf41sPy3azCQDxV9X4lv6tekr8YnyD2UZ3r1c1 d8tzFU8cjoF0Xt8ae/11Dw/iZQtMmVEyuUcEPI3zeymB3hfoP+CvS5bovbidSQMo YT1uo4FHfvsmlsDBV1Tu9VbS7kwOrHknBCD4h6Gc39JV1iiHXbPtsm+pRtJ5Lg1d Ykcv7mYQk0V8w/SvIBztSQyWH59XPQ== =tQFU -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--