Alex Kost <alez...@gmail.com> skribis:
> Thanks for pointing. I've never contributed to a real project, so I
> don't know the rules actually :)
No problem. :-) There might still be unwritten rules, but we can fix
that as we go.
> From af4b8495969d70d59aa9f3f296628daeaf80b0d2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Alex Kost <alez...@gmail.com>
> Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 12:32:16 +0400
> Subject: [PATCH 1/2] profiles: Add 'manifest-add'.
>
> * guix/profiles.scm (manifest-add): New procedure.
> * tests/profiles.scm (guile-1.8.8): New variable.
> ("manifest-add"): New test.
Perfect. I’ve pushed it, followed by a patch that changes
guix/scripts/package.scm to use ‘manifest-add’ (comments welcome.)
> From 5fd45b3f4216921837f522d56b20c4be0a58fe8e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Alex Kost <alez...@gmail.com>
> Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 13:54:23 +0400
> Subject: [PATCH 2/2] guix package: Add 'process-package-actions'.
>
> * guix/scripts/package.scm (process-package-actions): New procedure.
> (guix-package): Use it.
> [ensure-default-profile]: Move to top-level.
> [substitutes?]: New variable.
> [same-package?]: Remove.
> (options->installable, options->removable): Change according to
> 'process-package-actions'.
This patch would need to be rebased on top of f48624f.
Were you planning on using ‘process-package-actions’ in the Emacs
interface?
That seems like a coarse-grain and clumsy interface. Perhaps there are
tinier parts of it that could be moved to (guix profiles)? For
instance, there’s no ‘manifest-upgrade’ at the moment.
What about introducing a <manifest-transaction> type that would contain
a list of packages to install, to remove, and to upgrade, and we could do:
;; Show what will/would be installed, removed, etc.
(show-transaction manifest transaction #:dry-run? bool)
;; Do the installation/removal/upgrades listed in TRANSACTION, and
;; return the new manifest.
(manifest-perform-transaction manifest transaction)
WDYT?
Thanks,
Ludo’.
