Ludovic Courtès <l...@gnu.org> writes:
> Hello, > > Ricardo Wurmus <rek...@elephly.net> skribis: > [...] >> You can put this in a file “manifest-to-manifest.scm” and run it like >> this from a Guix source checkout: >> >> ./pre-inst-env guile -s manifest-to-manifest.scm /path/to/.guix-profile >> > my-manifest.scm > > I like how the script’s name highlights the naming inconsistency. :-) ... and that we should consider renaming one of these "manifests" ;-) >> You can then proceed to install the generated manifest with: >> >> guix package -m my-manifest.scm -p /path/to/new/.guix-profile >> >> If that’s what you’re looking for I suppose we could find a place for >> something like that under the umbrella of “guix package”. > > The problem, as I see it, is that this might give a false impression > that both “manifests” are entirely equivalent, which is not the case. This "false impression" is caused by the "naming inconsistency" (above) rather that by the proposed function, isn't it? > I sympathize with George’s idea of making it easier to move from the > incremental style to the declarative style, but I wonder if we should go > beyond suggesting to basically copy the package names shown in “guix > package -I” to the manifest file. Does this mean to have "manifest-to-manifest.scm" add any non-default (in the current Guix version) package outputs and versions to the package specifications produced? Or something else? - George
