From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: zimoun Subject: Re: Profiles/manifests-related command line interface enhancements Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2019 16:36:24 +0100 Message-ID: References: <87mudrxvs8.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <87mudd59ho.fsf@gnu.org> <877e4glyc3.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:40576) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iS0sr-0001Zi-1U for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 05 Nov 2019 10:36:42 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iS0so-0004ma-Tl for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 05 Nov 2019 10:36:40 -0500 In-Reply-To: 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" To: Konrad Hinsen Cc: Guix Devel Hi Konrad, On Tue, 5 Nov 2019 at 07:27, Konrad Hinsen wro= te: > two dimensions I mentioned, this should include shareable/re-usable > vs. personal. People publish and share Docker images, so why wouldn't > they publish and share Guix super-packages? I am not sure to see which feature is missing. - Channels allow to share package definition; - Publish allows to share pre-built binaries; - Pack allows to share images. So what should be missing should be a central server collecting all to ease, =C3=A0 la DockerHub. >From my point of view, ephemeral (environment) vs persistent (profile) depends on use-case but at the end the only concern is: how to populate them? And the only answer should be: declarative (manifest); the ad-hoc (package -i) should not be the usual way but only a quick&dirt test. Therefore ephemeral (environment) vs persistent (package --profile) should be compliant. Especially about composition. However, as discussed elsewhere about manifest and the time-machine patch -- I have not tried yet --, the manifest file perhaps needs more fine control to better describe the channels, substitutes etc.. > This third dimension also > raises the question of where the information (profiles, manifests, ...) > are stored and managed (version control?), Profiles are managed by Guix, isn't it? I mean their information are in generations, from my understanding. Manifests are managed by the user. And they does what they wants. ;-) > and how they are referred to > (name, filename, ...). Do you mean that guix environment -m https://example.com/my-manifest.scm should be possible? All the best, simon