Re: Proposal for a blog contribution on reproducible computations

[Konrad Hinsen <konrad.hinsen@fastmail.net>]

Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:

> Another thing that comes to mind: would it make sense to mention ‘guix
> graph’ in the part where you pipe the output of ‘guix show’ to ‘recsel’,
> etc.?

Forgot that one, sorry. Yes, it would make sense, though I'd place it a
bit later in the text. But I'd have to figure out first how how the
various options of "guix graph" relate exactly to what I am writing.

  ‘package’
       This is the default type used in the example above.  It shows the
       DAG of package objects, excluding implicit dependencies.  It is
       concise, but filters out many details.

Are "implicit dependencies" those added by the build system? If yes,
this edges in this graph would correspond to package-direct-inputs.

  ‘bag’
       Similar to ‘bag-emerged’, but this time including all the bootstrap
       dependencies.

And that is package-closure with arrows defined by bag-direct-inputs, right?

Cheers,
  Konrad.