Hi Mark, Mark H Weaver <m...@netris.org> skribis:
> Yes, of course, I agree that it's not possible to present a build plan > ahead of time when grafts are enabled. That was the case before these > changes, and it's the case today. > > The only part I don't understand is why you decided that "--dry-run" > should no longer imply "--no-grafts". Does it work better for other > people? For me, the "--dry-run" output has become utterly useless > unless "--no-grafts" is included. I explained the pros and cons of having ‘--dry-run’ no longer implying ‘--with-grafts’ here: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2020-03/msg00337.html ‘guix package --dry-run’ overall works well IME, except when a dependency of a fixed-output derivation is missing, as explained above. ‘guix system’ doesn’t work so well as you note (though again, that depends on what you’re building vs. what you have in store). I think we must find the remaining places that lack “parallelism” and address them, like I did for example in commit 2ad6eb0568ed69127aea987c009138e03b5b8954. (It would help if that code didn’t use the monadic interface this much because ‘lower-gexp’ already does the right thing.) > Anyway, it's not that important to me. I can just fix it in my own > private branch. I filed this report because I thought it might benefit > other users to have this fixed upstream. It matters to every user so I think it’s worth fixing in our common code base. Thanks, Ludo’.
