Hi Ludo, On Sun, 3 May 2020 at 22:31, Ludovic Courtès <l...@gnu.org> wrote:
> 1. guix environment (but it’s slower) > > 2. sh > . /my/profile/etc/profile.sh > exit Personally, time to time I use (thanks Pjotr): env -i $(which bash) --login --noprofile --norc . /my/profile/etc/profile exit because 'sh' is roughly bare and typing /my/long/path/to/profile without completion, history, move backward, etc. is not practical. Note: it is written in the Cookbook. Bottom of [1]. [1] https://guix.gnu.org/cookbook/en/html_node/Basic-setup-with-manifests.html#Basic-setup-with-manifests > 3. sh > eval `guix package -p /my/profile --search-paths` > exit > > Options #2 and #3 are more verbose, and less obvious to someone not > familiar with the shell. > > Still, such commands are targeting shell users, which makes me wonder > how far we should go. It’s an honest question: I’m torn between the > will to provide a simple CLI, and the need to avoid proliferation of > commands all more or less equivalent. Well, part of the subcommand "environment" could be done with "guix package -p" and then #3 but it is more more (more!) convenient to have a full subcommand: easy to use day-to-day and easy to explain, etc.. However, I am not in favour for adding another subcommands for only the use case of loading a profile. (Note that the point of Roel is legitimate: minimize the burden of their users already typing "guixr load-profile".) >From my point of view, instead of a subcommand, it should be an option: guix environment --load-profile or in short -P. And if another subcommand is added, it should be the more ambitious "profile manager", e.g., "guix profile", as it has been partly discussed, for examples in threads starting there: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2019-10/msg00565.html https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2019-12/msg00358.html Last, I prefer another subcommand (load-profile) than nothing. Because it is requested since a long time. All the best, simon
