From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: George Clemmer Subject: Re: ~/.guix-profile/manifest usage with "guix package -m [manifest]" / "guix pack -m [manifest]" etc.. Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 10:07:05 -0400 Message-ID: References: <87h8ic36ix.fsf@gnu.org> <87sh1oms8a.fsf@gnu.org> <87lg7gt735.fsf@elephly.net> <871s9039q6.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:46510) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gAF8s-000640-9N for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 10:07:15 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gAF8o-0001YV-BX for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 10:07:13 -0400 In-reply-to: <871s9039q6.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.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: "guix-devel@gnu.org" , YOANN P Ludovic Court=C3=A8s writes: > Hello, > > Ricardo Wurmus skribis: > [...] >> You can put this in a file =E2=80=9Cmanifest-to-manifest.scm=E2=80=9D an= d run it like >> this from a Guix source checkout: >> >> ./pre-inst-env guile -s manifest-to-manifest.scm /path/to/.guix-prof= ile > my-manifest.scm > > I like how the script=E2=80=99s name highlights the naming inconsistency.= :-) ... and that we should consider renaming one of these "manifests" ;-) >> You can then proceed to install the generated manifest with: >> >> guix package -m my-manifest.scm -p /path/to/new/.guix-profile >> >> If that=E2=80=99s what you=E2=80=99re looking for I suppose we could fin= d a place for >> something like that under the umbrella of =E2=80=9Cguix package=E2=80=9D. > > The problem, as I see it, is that this might give a false impression > that both =E2=80=9Cmanifests=E2=80=9D are entirely equivalent, which is n= ot the case. This "false impression" is caused by the "naming inconsistency" (above) rather that by the proposed function, isn't it? > I sympathize with George=E2=80=99s idea of making it easier to move from = the > incremental style to the declarative style, but I wonder if we should go > beyond suggesting to basically copy the package names shown in =E2=80=9Cg= uix > package -I=E2=80=9D to the manifest file. Does this mean to have "manifest-to-manifest.scm" add any non-default (in the current Guix version) package outputs and versions to the package specifications produced? Or something else? - George