John Darrington (2016-04-18 19:10 +0300) wrote: > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 11:57:59AM +0300, Alex Kost wrote: > I've just sent a message to bug#22587??, 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. > > I'm not saying that you're wrong. But I think the idea is that guix build > is a command for development, whereas guix package is a command for users. > I think the two need to be kept separate.
Sorry, I don't understand this point: we all are users of "guix" command. It looks natural to me that when you want to build a system, you write "guix system build", and when you want to build a package, you write "guix package build"; when you want to install a package, you can write "guix package install". Why a user wouldn't want just to build a package? For example, I do it all the time when I want just to try a package without installing. > Wouldn't it be great to make some breaking changes? I mean if this or > any other proposal on "guix" command structure is reasonable, I think > it's just the time for it while Guix is still alpha/beta. Otherwise, > the current command structure will never be changed. > > > I wouldn't mind seeing a few of the more recent commands as options to > (a possibly renamed) guix build. For example it seems to me that guix > environment is specific to a package so perhaps that is a good candidate. Wow, I have a reverse impression: I think "guix environment" is the worst candidate for moving elsewhere (I mean it is good as it is now) and it should stay as a stand-alone command. -- Alex
