Mark H Weaver <m...@netris.org> writes: > Alex Vong <alexvong1...@gmail.com> writes: > >> Thorsten Wilms <t...@freenet.de> writes: >> >>> I already had a "rename" binary via util-linux. Then I installed the >>> package "rename", resulting in another "rename" binary, as I prefer >>> the Perl version. This was a success in that I got what I wanted. >>> >>> However, should this name clash be considered a bug? >>> Is there a policy for such circumstances? >>> What happens that the newly installed "rename" gets precedence? >>> >> I think it is chosen based on some random criterions > > It's not random, but rather a very simple criterion. The packages > listed first in the package manifest take priority over ones that come > later. If you don't use manifests, "guix package -i <pkg>" puts <pkg> > at the top of the new manifest, even if it was already present in the > previous manifest. > I see, so this explains how Thorsten managed to get the right rename (not because of luck or magic...)
I personally had given up using the imprerative "install" interface and switched using the declarative "manifest" interface. IMO, it makes it clearer what I've installed and allows me quickly comment / un-comment fail-to-build packages. With the imprerative interface, I've to remember which fail-to-build packages I didn't upgrade last time. So in fact we have a 3rd solution: to re-order the packages in your manifest. > Mark Cheers, Alex
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
