From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Konrad Hinsen <konrad.hinsen@fastmail.net>
Subject: Re: Proposal for a blog contribution on reproducible computations
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2020 10:39:36 +0100
Message-ID: <m18smebacn.fsf@ordinateur-de-catherine--konrad.home>
References: <8D474474-AF4C-4B03-9D38-3BB089BEE4EB@lepiller.eu>
 <87tv6ec048.fsf@ambrevar.xyz>
 <14A62244-3626-4146-B40E-BC5CED4B78D3@lepiller.eu>
 <m1lfrqrd3f.fsf@khs-macbook.home>
 <CAJ3okZ2hKBPZNthZpBQ=xibxzjJu7_gO8HoEcAzxaZcNbR_0gg@mail.gmail.com>
 <m1a785r4q6.fsf@khs-macbook.home> <m1blrfxnes.fsf@fastmail.net>
 <878smfutv8.fsf@gnu.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:56144)
 by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1)
 (envelope-from <konrad.hinsen@fastmail.net>) id 1iqDF6-0006gL-8m
 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 11 Jan 2020 04:39:41 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
 (envelope-from <konrad.hinsen@fastmail.net>) id 1iqDF5-0003qV-5D
 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 11 Jan 2020 04:39:40 -0500
In-Reply-To: <878smfutv8.fsf@gnu.org>
List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution."
 <guix-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-devel>,
 <mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-devel>,
 <mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org
Sender: "Guix-devel"
 <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org>
To: Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= <ludo@gnu.org>
Cc: Guix Devel <guix-devel@gnu.org>

Ludovic Court=C3=A8s <ludo@gnu.org> writes:

> Another thing that comes to mind: would it make sense to mention =E2=80=
=98guix
> graph=E2=80=99 in the part where you pipe the output of =E2=80=98guix sho=
w=E2=80=99 to =E2=80=98recsel=E2=80=99,
> 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.

  =E2=80=98package=E2=80=99
       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.

  =E2=80=98bag=E2=80=99
       Similar to =E2=80=98bag-emerged=E2=80=99, but this time including al=
l the bootstrap
       dependencies.

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

Cheers,
  Konrad.