[PATCH] scripts: package: Add --install-from-file option.

[PATCH] scripts: package: Add --install-from-file option.

[David Thompson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 650 bytes --]

In my personal projects, I keep a 'package.scm' file in the root of the
source tree for use with 'guix environment -l'.  However, it's also
handy to install that package by using 'guix package -e':

    guix package -e '(primitive-load "package.scm")'

This patch adds a shorthand for this:

    guix package -f package.scm

The motivation for this is to ultimately encourage other people to keep
a 'package.scm' file in their own repos for building reproducible
development environments and easily testing development snapshots, like
what we do with our 'guix-devel' package.

I'd like to add the same option for 'guix build', if this is approved.


[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #2: 0001-scripts-package-Add-install-from-file-option.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 3335 bytes --]

From 07c9b35facf810872f3bc8342e18b33033714adf Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: David Thompson <dthompson2@worcester.edu>
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2015 11:35:51 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] scripts: package: Add --install-from-file option.

* guix/scripts/package.scm (show-help): Add help text for --install-from-file
  option.
  (%options): Add --install-from-file option.
* doc/guix.texi ("invoking guix package"): Document it.
---
 doc/guix.texi            | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 guix/scripts/package.scm | 10 ++++++++++
 2 files changed, 41 insertions(+)

diff --git a/doc/guix.texi b/doc/guix.texi
index bcf07a6..dda478f 100644
--- a/doc/guix.texi
+++ b/doc/guix.texi
@@ -1167,6 +1167,37 @@ Note that this option installs the first output of the specified
 package, which may be insufficient when needing a specific output of a
 multiple-output package.
 
+@item --install-from-file=@var{file}
+@itemx -f @var{file}
+Install the package that the code within @var{file} evaluates to.
+
+As an example, @var{file} might contain a definition like this
+(@pxref{Defining Packages}):
+
+@example
+(use-modules (guix packages)
+             (guix download)
+             (guix build-system gnu)
+             (guix licenses))
+
+(package
+  (name "hello")
+  (version "2.8")
+  (source (origin
+            (method url-fetch)
+            (uri (string-append "mirror://gnu/hello/hello-" version
+                                ".tar.gz"))
+            (sha256
+             (base32 "0wqd8sjmxfskrflaxywc7gqw7sfawrfvdxd9skxawzfgyy0pzdz6"))))
+  (build-system gnu-build-system)
+  (arguments `(#:configure-flags '("--enable-silent-rules")))
+  (inputs `(("gawk" ,gawk)))
+  (synopsis "Hello, GNU world: An example GNU package")
+  (description "Guess what GNU Hello prints!")
+  (home-page "http://www.gnu.org/software/hello/")
+  (license gpl3+))
+@end example
+
 @item --remove=@var{package} @dots{}
 @itemx -r @var{package} @dots{}
 Remove the specified @var{package}s.
diff --git a/guix/scripts/package.scm b/guix/scripts/package.scm
index b545ea2..23f1597 100644
--- a/guix/scripts/package.scm
+++ b/guix/scripts/package.scm
@@ -381,6 +381,10 @@ Install, remove, or upgrade packages in a single transaction.\n"))
   -e, --install-from-expression=EXP
                          install the package EXP evaluates to"))
   (display (_ "
+  -f, --install-from-file=FILE
+                         install the package that the code within FILE
+                         evaluates to"))
+  (display (_ "
   -r, --remove PACKAGE ...
                          remove PACKAGEs"))
   (display (_ "
@@ -454,6 +458,12 @@ Install, remove, or upgrade packages in a single transaction.\n"))
                    (values (alist-cons 'install (read/eval-package-expression arg)
                                        result)
                            #f)))
+         (option '(#\f "install-from-file") #t #f
+                 (lambda (opt name arg result arg-handler)
+                   (values (alist-cons 'install
+                                       (load* arg (make-user-module '()))
+                                       result)
+                           #f)))
          (option '(#\r "remove") #f #t
                  (lambda (opt name arg result arg-handler)
                    (let arg-handler ((arg arg) (result result))
-- 
2.4.3


[-- Attachment #3: Type: text/plain, Size: 38 bytes --]


-- 
David Thompson
GPG Key: 0FF1D807

Re: [PATCH] scripts: package: Add --install-from-file option.

[Alex Kost]

David Thompson (2015-08-09 18:59 +0300) wrote:

> In my personal projects, I keep a 'package.scm' file in the root of the
> source tree for use with 'guix environment -l'.  However, it's also
> handy to install that package by using 'guix package -e':
>
>     guix package -e '(primitive-load "package.scm")'
>
> This patch adds a shorthand for this:
>
>     guix package -f package.scm
>
> The motivation for this is to ultimately encourage other people to keep
> a 'package.scm' file in their own repos for building reproducible
> development environments and easily testing development snapshots, like
> what we do with our 'guix-devel' package.
>
> I'd like to add the same option for 'guix build', if this is approved.

I agree that it will be easy for users than -e option.

And I'm also for adding --from-file option to 'guix build'.  Thank you.

[...]
> +@example
> +(use-modules (guix packages)
> +             (guix download)
> +             (guix build-system gnu)
> +             (guix licenses))

(gnu packages gawk) module should also be put there, as the package uses
'gawk' input.

> +(package
> +  (name "hello")
> +  (version "2.8")
> +  (source (origin
> +            (method url-fetch)
> +            (uri (string-append "mirror://gnu/hello/hello-" version
> +                                ".tar.gz"))
> +            (sha256
> +             (base32 "0wqd8sjmxfskrflaxywc7gqw7sfawrfvdxd9skxawzfgyy0pzdz6"))))
> +  (build-system gnu-build-system)
> +  (arguments `(#:configure-flags '("--enable-silent-rules")))
> +  (inputs `(("gawk" ,gawk)))
> +  (synopsis "Hello, GNU world: An example GNU package")
> +  (description "Guess what GNU Hello prints!")
> +  (home-page "http://www.gnu.org/software/hello/")
> +  (license gpl3+))
> +@end example

-- 
Alex

Re: [PATCH] scripts: package: Add --install-from-file option.

[Ludovic Courtès]

David Thompson <dthompson2@worcester.edu> skribis:

> In my personal projects, I keep a 'package.scm' file in the root of the
> source tree for use with 'guix environment -l'.  However, it's also
> handy to install that package by using 'guix package -e':
>
>     guix package -e '(primitive-load "package.scm")'
>
> This patch adds a shorthand for this:
>
>     guix package -f package.scm

Makes sense.

> The motivation for this is to ultimately encourage other people to keep
> a 'package.scm' file in their own repos for building reproducible
> development environments and easily testing development snapshots, like
> what we do with our 'guix-devel' package.

Nice.  The bottom line though is that we don’t quite guarantee stability
of the “API” of the package modules.

> I'd like to add the same option for 'guix build', if this is approved.

Sure.

> From 07c9b35facf810872f3bc8342e18b33033714adf Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: David Thompson <dthompson2@worcester.edu>
> Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2015 11:35:51 -0400
> Subject: [PATCH] scripts: package: Add --install-from-file option.
>
> * guix/scripts/package.scm (show-help): Add help text for --install-from-file
>   option.
>   (%options): Add --install-from-file option.
> * doc/guix.texi ("invoking guix package"): Document it.

[...]

> +(use-modules (guix packages)
> +             (guix download)
> +             (guix build-system gnu)
> +             (guix licenses))

Just (use-modules (guix) (guix licenses))?

Can you put the example in a separate file (like
doc/environment-gdb.scm)?  That will allow us to easily check that the
file is indeed valid.

> +  (arguments `(#:configure-flags '("--enable-silent-rules")))
> +  (inputs `(("gawk" ,gawk)))

I think these two lines can be removed.

> +@end example

Here it would be good to add a sentence or two like the paragraph you
wrote above about the motivation for all this.

Could you send an updated patch?

Thanks!

Ludo’.

Re: [PATCH] scripts: package: Add --install-from-file option.

[Thompson, David]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2692 bytes --]

On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> wrote:
> David Thompson <dthompson2@worcester.edu> skribis:
>
>> In my personal projects, I keep a 'package.scm' file in the root of the
>> source tree for use with 'guix environment -l'.  However, it's also
>> handy to install that package by using 'guix package -e':
>>
>>     guix package -e '(primitive-load "package.scm")'
>>
>> This patch adds a shorthand for this:
>>
>>     guix package -f package.scm
>
> Makes sense.
>
>> The motivation for this is to ultimately encourage other people to keep
>> a 'package.scm' file in their own repos for building reproducible
>> development environments and easily testing development snapshots, like
>> what we do with our 'guix-devel' package.
>
> Nice.  The bottom line though is that we don’t quite guarantee stability
> of the “API” of the package modules.

Understood.  In practice, I haven't found this to be a big deal.  I
provide package.scm files in all of my projects now and it's been a
huge win for making it easier to quickly get hacking on a new machine.

>> I'd like to add the same option for 'guix build', if this is approved.
>
> Sure.

Great. :)

>> From 07c9b35facf810872f3bc8342e18b33033714adf Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: David Thompson <dthompson2@worcester.edu>
>> Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2015 11:35:51 -0400
>> Subject: [PATCH] scripts: package: Add --install-from-file option.
>>
>> * guix/scripts/package.scm (show-help): Add help text for --install-from-file
>>   option.
>>   (%options): Add --install-from-file option.
>> * doc/guix.texi ("invoking guix package"): Document it.
>
> [...]
>
>> +(use-modules (guix packages)
>> +             (guix download)
>> +             (guix build-system gnu)
>> +             (guix licenses))
>
> Just (use-modules (guix) (guix licenses))?

I needed: (use-modules (guix) (guix build-system gnu) (guix licenses))

> Can you put the example in a separate file (like
> doc/environment-gdb.scm)?  That will allow us to easily check that the
> file is indeed valid.

Done.

>> +  (arguments `(#:configure-flags '("--enable-silent-rules")))
>> +  (inputs `(("gawk" ,gawk)))
>
> I think these two lines can be removed.

Yeah.  BTW, I copy/pasted this from the "Defining Packages" section,
and that example appears to be broken because it doesn't import the
(gnu packages gawk) module.

>> +@end example
>
> Here it would be good to add a sentence or two like the paragraph you
> wrote above about the motivation for all this.

Added a sentence about it.

> Could you send an updated patch?

Attached.  Thanks for the review.

- Dave

[-- Attachment #2: 0001-scripts-package-Add-install-from-file-option.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 4686 bytes --]

From 471fff182b632fc3b6f99925ff6c7bd25850a841 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: David Thompson <dthompson2@worcester.edu>
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2015 11:35:51 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] scripts: package: Add --install-from-file option.

* guix/scripts/package.scm (show-help): Add help text for --install-from-file
  option.
  (%options): Add --install-from-file option.
* doc/guix.texi ("invoking guix package"): Document it.
* doc/package-hello.scm: New file.
* doc.am (EXTRA_DIST): Add it.
---
 doc.am                   |  3 ++-
 doc/guix.texi            | 18 +++++++++++++++++-
 doc/package-hello.scm    | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
 guix/scripts/package.scm | 10 ++++++++++
 4 files changed, 47 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 doc/package-hello.scm

diff --git a/doc.am b/doc.am
index 02b80ec..1f0b832 100644
--- a/doc.am
+++ b/doc.am
@@ -26,7 +26,8 @@ EXTRA_DIST +=					\
   doc/images/bootstrap-graph.eps		\
   doc/images/bootstrap-graph.pdf		\
   doc/images/coreutils-size-map.eps		\
-  doc/environment-gdb.scm
+  doc/environment-gdb.scm			\
+  doc/package-hello.scm
 
 OS_CONFIG_EXAMPLES_TEXI =			\
   doc/os-config-bare-bones.texi			\
diff --git a/doc/guix.texi b/doc/guix.texi
index a20bca6..5550582 100644
--- a/doc/guix.texi
+++ b/doc/guix.texi
@@ -1167,6 +1167,22 @@ Note that this option installs the first output of the specified
 package, which may be insufficient when needing a specific output of a
 multiple-output package.
 
+@item --install-from-file=@var{file}
+@itemx -f @var{file}
+Install the package that the code within @var{file} evaluates to.
+
+As an example, @var{file} might contain a definition like this
+(@pxref{Defining Packages}):
+
+@example
+@verbatiminclude package-hello.scm
+@end example
+
+Developers may find it useful to include such a @file{package.scm} file
+in the root of their project's source tree that can be used to test
+development snapshots and create reproducible development environments
+(@pxref{Invoking guix environment}).
+
 @item --remove=@var{package} @dots{}
 @itemx -r @var{package} @dots{}
 Remove the specified @var{package}s.
@@ -2841,7 +2857,7 @@ omitted since it will take place implicitly, as we will see later
 @end example
 
 @c See
-@c <https://syntaxexclamation.wordpress.com/2014/06/26/escaping-continuations/> 
+@c <https://syntaxexclamation.wordpress.com/2014/06/26/escaping-continuations/>
 @c for the funny quote.
 Calling the monadic @code{sh-symlink} has no effect.  As someone once
 said, ``you exit a monad like you exit a building on fire: by running''.
diff --git a/doc/package-hello.scm b/doc/package-hello.scm
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..b3fcd4f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/package-hello.scm
@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+(use-modules (guix)
+             (guix build-system gnu)
+             (guix licenses))
+
+(package
+  (name "hello")
+  (version "2.8")
+  (source (origin
+            (method url-fetch)
+            (uri (string-append "mirror://gnu/hello/hello-" version
+                                ".tar.gz"))
+            (sha256
+             (base32 "0wqd8sjmxfskrflaxywc7gqw7sfawrfvdxd9skxawzfgyy0pzdz6"))))
+  (build-system gnu-build-system)
+  (synopsis "Hello, GNU world: An example GNU package")
+  (description "Guess what GNU Hello prints!")
+  (home-page "http://www.gnu.org/software/hello/")
+  (license gpl3+))
diff --git a/guix/scripts/package.scm b/guix/scripts/package.scm
index b545ea2..23f1597 100644
--- a/guix/scripts/package.scm
+++ b/guix/scripts/package.scm
@@ -381,6 +381,10 @@ Install, remove, or upgrade packages in a single transaction.\n"))
   -e, --install-from-expression=EXP
                          install the package EXP evaluates to"))
   (display (_ "
+  -f, --install-from-file=FILE
+                         install the package that the code within FILE
+                         evaluates to"))
+  (display (_ "
   -r, --remove PACKAGE ...
                          remove PACKAGEs"))
   (display (_ "
@@ -454,6 +458,12 @@ Install, remove, or upgrade packages in a single transaction.\n"))
                    (values (alist-cons 'install (read/eval-package-expression arg)
                                        result)
                            #f)))
+         (option '(#\f "install-from-file") #t #f
+                 (lambda (opt name arg result arg-handler)
+                   (values (alist-cons 'install
+                                       (load* arg (make-user-module '()))
+                                       result)
+                           #f)))
          (option '(#\r "remove") #f #t
                  (lambda (opt name arg result arg-handler)
                    (let arg-handler ((arg arg) (result result))
-- 
2.4.3

Re: [PATCH] scripts: package: Add --install-from-file option.

[Amirouche Boubekki]

Le 2015-08-09 17:59, David Thompson a écrit :
> In my personal projects, I keep a 'package.scm' file in the root of the
> source tree for use with 'guix environment -l'.  However, it's also
> handy to install that package by using 'guix package -e':
> 
>     guix package -e '(primitive-load "package.scm")'
> 
> This patch adds a shorthand for this:
> 
>     guix package -f package.scm

What about dispatch `guix package -i` depending on the argument. In 
principle there will be no "*.scm$" packages so the above could be

       guix package -i package.scm

The idea behind that is to keep the number of command to minimum. In 
this case, IMO, it makes sens to merge both logic inside the same UI.

On a similar note, I like a lot the idea of Andy Wingo `guix install` 
and `guix search`.

> 
> The motivation for this is to ultimately encourage other people to keep
> a 'package.scm' file in their own repos for building reproducible
> development environments and easily testing development snapshots, like
> what we do with our 'guix-devel' package.
> 
> I'd like to add the same option for 'guix build', if this is approved.

Re: [PATCH] scripts: package: Add --install-from-file option.

[Amirouche Boubekki]

Le 2015-08-19 10:27, Amirouche Boubekki a écrit :
> Le 2015-08-09 17:59, David Thompson a écrit :
>> In my personal projects, I keep a 'package.scm' file in the root of 
>> the
>> source tree for use with 'guix environment -l'.  However, it's also
>> handy to install that package by using 'guix package -e':
>> 
>>     guix package -e '(primitive-load "package.scm")'
>> 
>> This patch adds a shorthand for this:
>> 
>>     guix package -f package.scm
> 
> What about dispatch `guix package -i` depending on the argument. In
> principle there will be no "*.scm$" packages so the above could be
> 
>       guix package -i package.scm
> 
> The idea behind that is to keep the number of command to minimum. In
> this case, IMO, it makes sens to merge both logic inside the same UI.
> 
> On a similar note, I like a lot the idea of Andy Wingo `guix install`
> and `guix search`.

To be precise I prefer, `guix package install` and `guix package search` 
(which is not the subject of patch of Andy Wingo).

Re: [PATCH] scripts: package: Add --install-from-file option.

[Thompson, David]

On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 4:27 AM, Amirouche Boubekki
<amirouche@hypermove.net> wrote:
> Le 2015-08-09 17:59, David Thompson a écrit :
>>
>> In my personal projects, I keep a 'package.scm' file in the root of the
>> source tree for use with 'guix environment -l'.  However, it's also
>> handy to install that package by using 'guix package -e':
>>
>>     guix package -e '(primitive-load "package.scm")'
>>
>> This patch adds a shorthand for this:
>>
>>     guix package -f package.scm
>
>
> What about dispatch `guix package -i` depending on the argument. In
> principle there will be no "*.scm$" packages so the above could be
>
>       guix package -i package.scm
>
> The idea behind that is to keep the number of command to minimum. In this
> case, IMO, it makes sens to merge both logic inside the same UI.

That won't work because it creates ambiguities in the package spec
syntax.  How can one tell if a package spec or a file name was passed
with 100% accuracy?  You can't, and we'd have to use a heuristic that
would surely fail in some awful way for someone.  It's best for this
to be a separate argument.

- Dave

Re: [PATCH] scripts: package: Add --install-from-file option.

[Taylan Ulrich Bayırlı/Kammer]

"Thompson, David" <dthompson2@worcester.edu> writes:

> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 4:27 AM, Amirouche Boubekki
> <amirouche@hypermove.net> wrote:
>
>> What about dispatch `guix package -i` depending on the argument. In
>> principle there will be no "*.scm$" packages so the above could be
>>
>>       guix package -i package.scm
>>
>> The idea behind that is to keep the number of command to minimum. In this
>> case, IMO, it makes sens to merge both logic inside the same UI.
>
> That won't work because it creates ambiguities in the package spec
> syntax.  How can one tell if a package spec or a file name was passed
> with 100% accuracy?  You can't, and we'd have to use a heuristic that
> would surely fail in some awful way for someone.  It's best for this
> to be a separate argument.
>
> - Dave

Sometimes a 99.9% solution is acceptable IMO.  Packages named "foo.scm"
should be exceedingly rare in first place, and then if you also have a
file of that name in the current directory...

Another option might be to expect a slash in the string, i.e. forcing
"./" if the file's in the current directory:

    guix package -i ./package.scm

Happening to have a package with a slash in its name, ending in .scm,
and coinciding with the relative or absolute path of a file existing on
your filesystem, ought to be implausible.

Just my two cents from glancing over the discussion though.  No strong
opinions.  Additional flag is fine too by me.

Taylan

Re: [PATCH] scripts: package: Add --install-from-file option.

[Claes Wallin (韋嘉誠)]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 534 bytes --]

On Aug 19, 2015 10:57 AM, "Amirouche Boubekki" <amirouche@hypermove.net>
wrote:

>> On a similar note, I like a lot the idea of Andy Wingo `guix install`
>> and `guix search`.
>
>
> To be precise I prefer, `guix package install` and `guix package search`
(which is not the subject of patch of Andy Wingo).

The point is exactly not to have to remember/know that installing belongs
to the "package" subcommand. "package install" and "package search" are
negligibly easier to remember or guess than "package -i" and "package
--search".

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 744 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] scripts: package: Add --install-from-file option.

[Amirouche Boubekki]

Le 2015-08-19 15:04, Thompson, David a écrit :
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 4:27 AM, Amirouche Boubekki
> <amirouche@hypermove.net> wrote:
>> Le 2015-08-09 17:59, David Thompson a écrit :
>>> 
>>> In my personal projects, I keep a 'package.scm' file in the root of 
>>> the
>>> source tree for use with 'guix environment -l'.  However, it's also
>>> handy to install that package by using 'guix package -e':
>>> 
>>>     guix package -e '(primitive-load "package.scm")'
>>> 
>>> This patch adds a shorthand for this:
>>> 
>>>     guix package -f package.scm
>> 
>> 
>> What about dispatch `guix package -i` depending on the argument. In
>> principle there will be no "*.scm$" packages so the above could be
>> 
>>       guix package -i package.scm
>> 
>> The idea behind that is to keep the number of command to minimum. In 
>> this
>> case, IMO, it makes sens to merge both logic inside the same UI.
> 
> That won't work because it creates ambiguities in the package spec
> syntax.

Thanks.

> How can one tell if a package spec or a file name was passed
> with 100% accuracy?

Honestly I have the feeling that you are pushing your idea more than 
trying to make things better.

- Adding the `-f` modifier won't help make guix package command easy to 
the mind.

- Especially since the command it will replace is simple

- The command targets developpers and is only useful in the context of 
building project from sources which are not released. It can go inside a 
Makefile.

For this reason I don't like it being inside guix.

> You can't, and we'd have to use a heuristic that
> would surely fail in some awful way for someone.  It's best for this
> to be a separate argument.

You know you are wrong. You can simply ban packages which ends with .scm 
which is not too difficult to do and is already possible with current 
packages.

My opinion, is that instead of adding options/modifiers to "guix 
package", it should be split into "guix package install", "guix package 
search", "guix package show" and "guix package generation". It might not 
be obvious and is afaik not a cli layout that is widespread but it will 
greatly help people get their hands on guix.

I get lost and don't remember all the apt-foo commands and what they are 
supposed to do. Using this scheme will keep each subcommand --help (or 
just help) more readable.

Re: [PATCH] scripts: package: Add --install-from-file option.

[Alex Kost]

Amirouche Boubekki (2015-08-19 18:31 +0300) wrote:

> Le 2015-08-19 15:04, Thompson, David a écrit :
>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 4:27 AM, Amirouche Boubekki
>> <amirouche@hypermove.net> wrote:
>>> Le 2015-08-09 17:59, David Thompson a écrit :
>>>>
>>>> In my personal projects, I keep a 'package.scm' file in the root of
>>>> the
>>>> source tree for use with 'guix environment -l'.  However, it's also
>>>> handy to install that package by using 'guix package -e':
>>>>
>>>>     guix package -e '(primitive-load "package.scm")'
>>>>
>>>> This patch adds a shorthand for this:
>>>>
>>>>     guix package -f package.scm
>>>
>>>
>>> What about dispatch `guix package -i` depending on the argument. In
>>> principle there will be no "*.scm$" packages so the above could be
>>>
>>>       guix package -i package.scm
>>>
>>> The idea behind that is to keep the number of command to minimum. In
>>> this
>>> case, IMO, it makes sens to merge both logic inside the same UI.
>>
>> That won't work because it creates ambiguities in the package spec
>> syntax.

I agree with David on another option instead of adding a special case to
"--install".  I think you can't rely on ".scm" extension.

[...]
> My opinion, is that instead of adding options/modifiers to "guix
> package", it should be split into "guix package install", "guix package
> search", "guix package show" and "guix package generation". It might not
> be obvious and is afaik not a cli layout that is widespread but it will
> greatly help people get their hands on guix.

I would also like subcommands for "guix package" but what about
simultaneous installing+removing that can be currently done with "guix
package -i foo -r bar"?

-- 
Alex

Re: [PATCH] scripts: package: Add --install-from-file option.

[Ludovic Courtès]

"Thompson, David" <dthompson2@worcester.edu> skribis:

> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> wrote:

>>> +  (arguments `(#:configure-flags '("--enable-silent-rules")))
>>> +  (inputs `(("gawk" ,gawk)))
>>
>> I think these two lines can be removed.
>
> Yeah.  BTW, I copy/pasted this from the "Defining Packages" section,
> and that example appears to be broken because it doesn't import the
> (gnu packages gawk) module.

We need to fix it.

> From 471fff182b632fc3b6f99925ff6c7bd25850a841 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: David Thompson <dthompson2@worcester.edu>
> Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2015 11:35:51 -0400
> Subject: [PATCH] scripts: package: Add --install-from-file option.
>
> * guix/scripts/package.scm (show-help): Add help text for --install-from-file
>   option.
>   (%options): Add --install-from-file option.
> * doc/guix.texi ("invoking guix package"): Document it.
> * doc/package-hello.scm: New file.
> * doc.am (EXTRA_DIST): Add it.

LGTM!

In total sloppiness I forgot to ask you for a test, but you’re welcome
to post it separately.  :-)

I think a couple of lines in tests/guix-package.sh would do, where the
given file would just evaluate to ‘%bootstrap-guile’ for instance.  How
does that sound?

Thank you,
Ludo’.

Re: [PATCH] scripts: package: Add --install-from-file option.

[Thompson, David]

On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 6:38 PM, Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> wrote:
> "Thompson, David" <dthompson2@worcester.edu> skribis:
>
>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> wrote:
>
>> From 471fff182b632fc3b6f99925ff6c7bd25850a841 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: David Thompson <dthompson2@worcester.edu>
>> Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2015 11:35:51 -0400
>> Subject: [PATCH] scripts: package: Add --install-from-file option.
>>
>> * guix/scripts/package.scm (show-help): Add help text for --install-from-file
>>   option.
>>   (%options): Add --install-from-file option.
>> * doc/guix.texi ("invoking guix package"): Document it.
>> * doc/package-hello.scm: New file.
>> * doc.am (EXTRA_DIST): Add it.
>
> LGTM!
>
> In total sloppiness I forgot to ask you for a test, but you’re welcome
> to post it separately.  :-)
>
> I think a couple of lines in tests/guix-package.sh would do, where the
> given file would just evaluate to ‘%bootstrap-guile’ for instance.  How
> does that sound?

Done and pushed.  Thanks!

- Dave