From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: zimoun Subject: Re: Store channel specification in profile Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2020 16:53:12 +0100 Message-ID: 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> <87a76rqu5j.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:38319) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ir21v-0006dG-DB for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 13 Jan 2020 10:53:28 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ir21u-0001hA-Ec for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 13 Jan 2020 10:53:27 -0500 In-Reply-To: <87a76rqu5j.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> 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: Pierre Neidhardt Cc: Guix Devel On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 at 15:59, Pierre Neidhardt wrote: > > If I understand correctly, it's because of the manifest files need > information like the store path and the propagated inputs, which are too > inconvenient for a user-facing "specification file." Hum? I am not convinced yet. :-) For example, the record contains the field "outputs" but some packages do not use it; e.g., "xmag". Same for "native-inputs", etc. To me, the aim is to have something compliant between /manifest and --manifest. And compliant does not mean that /manifest is the entry point for the user specifications. What I find a bit odd is: today, --manifest accepts a DSL and Guix outputs to /manifest another DSL. Both are restricted tiny DSL. And from all the recent discussions about manifests and so on, I find appealing to extend the DSL of --manifest and use a subset to write /manifest. I do not know. Cheers, simon