Re: Reorganizing guix package commands

[Ricardo Wurmus <ricardo.wurmus@mdc-berlin.de>]

myglc2 <myglc2@gmail.com> writes:

> Alex Kost <alezost@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Ludovic Courtès (2016-04-18 20:20 +0300) wrote:
>>
>>> Alex Kost <alezost@gmail.com> skribis:
>>>
>>>> I've just sent a message to bug#22587¹, but I realized it is better to
>>>> discuss it here in a separate thread.
>>>>
>>>> So, I think there are inconsistencies in guix commands.  For example, we
>>>> have "guix system build" to build a system, but "guix build" to build a
>>>> package.  IMO "guix package build" would be a better choice.
>>>>
>>>> In general, I think it would be good to move package commands inside
>>>> "guix package", e.g, to make "guix package lint", "guix package size",
>>>> etc.
>>>
>>> Why not consider “package” to be the default word?  :-)
>>
>> Interesting, but why do we need to have "guix package" at all?  Let's
>> just use "guix --install", etc.  (This is not what I suggest :-))
>>
>>> I can see how adding “package” everywhere helps categorize things
>>> mentally, but as a user interface, I think it would be rather bad.
>>
>> As a user, I think it would be rather good.  (This is just my user opinion)
>>
>>> Also, it’s not that simple: “guix size” can take a store item instead of
>>> a package name, “guix graph” cannot do it yet but it would be useful if
>>> it could (“guix graph -t references $(readlink -f /run/current-system)”),
>>> etc.
>>
>> Hm, OK, I'm not sure, but let's leave "graph" and "size" alone for now.
>>
>>> I still think that having aliases like “guix install” as Andy proposed
>>> long ago would be useful, though I never started working on it.
>>
>> I agree!  Except I think they should be inside "guix package":
>>
>>   guix package install ...
>>   guix package remove ...
>>
>> As for the transactional operations (I mean remove/install in one
>> command), I think we can do it in a separate "guix profile" command:
>>
>>   guix profile --install ... --remove ...
>>
>>> There are probably other improvements to do around “guix package” (maybe
>>> turning some of its options into separate sub-commands as was suggested
>>> before.)  All we need is a clear view of where we’re going and patches.  :-)
>>
>> Here is the summary of the changes I think it would be good to have:
>>
>> | Replace this:                     | With this:                        |
>> |-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------|
>> | guix build                        | guix package build                |
>> | guix edit                         | guix package definition¹          |
>> | guix import                       | guix package import               |
>> | guix lint                         | guix package lint                 |
>> | guix refresh                      | guix package refresh              |
>> | guix package --show               | guix package show                 |
>> | guix package --search             | guix package search               |
>> | guix package --list-available     | guix package list                 |
>> |-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------|
>> | guix package --list-generations   | guix profile --list-generations   |
>> | guix package --list-installed     | guix profile --list-installed     |
>> | guix package --delete-generations | guix profile --delete-generations |
>> | guix package --switch-generations | guix profile --switch-generations |
>> | guix package --roll-back          | guix profile --roll-back          |
>> | guix package --manifest           | guix profile --manifest           |
>>
>> ¹ "edit" name is confusing: <http://bugs.gnu.org/22587>
>>
>> Maybe instead of --list-generations and others, these options should
>> transform into subcommands (list-generations) of "guix profile".
>
> The term 'profile' is used at user- and system- levels:
>
> 3.1 Features
> ============
> [...]
>    Instead of referring to these directories, users have their own
> “profile”, which points to the packages that they actually want to use.
> These profiles are stored within each user’s home directory, at
> ‘$HOME/.guix-profile’.
>
> 7.2.2 ‘operating-system’ Reference
> ----------------------------------
>      ‘packages’ (default: %BASE-PACKAGES)
>           The set of packages installed in the global profile, which is
>           accessible at ‘/run/current-system/profile’.
>
> ... and in home directories:
>
> /home/user1/.guix-profile -> /var/guix/profiles/per-user/user1/guix-profile
> /home/user1/.profile
>
> Making the use of 'profile' here ambiguous. So I suggest that you change
> 'guix profile ...' to 'guix user ...' like so:

I don’t think it’s ambiguous at all.  The system profile is a profile
like any other, so you can, for example, list installed packages like
this:

    guix package -p /run/booted-system/profile \
      --list-installed

What doesn’t work is to operate on generations because the booted-system
profile is a direct link to a store item; there is no indirection.  You
also cannot use “--manifest” on it because the profile contents are
controlled via “guix system reconfigure /path/to/config.scm”.

Rather than making the differences bigger, I think we should unify
profile management, i.e. make more of the commands for regular profiles
work with the system profile (provided a user has root privileges).

> |-----------------------------------+--------------------------------|
> | guix package --list-generations   | guix user --list-generations   |
> | guix package --list-installed     | guix user --list-installed     |
> | guix package --delete-generations | guix user --delete-generations |
> | guix package --switch-generations | guix user --switch-generations |
> | guix package --roll-back          | guix user --roll-back          |
> | guix package --manifest           | guix user --manifest           |
>
> and similarly, the above ...
>
>>   guix package install ...
>>   guix package remove ...
>
> ... would become ...
>
> guix user install ...
> guix user remove ...

I don’t think this is a good idea.  In addition to the reasons I stated
above “user” is even more vague than “package” is.  The proposal to use
“profile” for profile-related operations is a very natural one.

Here at the MDC we are using many different profiles on a regular
basis.  Multiple profiles is a common use-case.  Operating on profiles
with “guix profile” seems really appropriate; doing this via “guix user”
is confusing to me.  I don’t know what “user” stands for.

~~ Ricardo