Hi, Pierre Neidhardt <m...@ambrevar.xyz> skribis:
> Indeed, that was discussed at length but we still need to reach a > consensus :) > > I personally disagree with the --export-manifest suggestion (which may > be one of the reasons why this is stalling :p). Ah, OK. > Links to the related discussions (lots to read in there!): > > - Store channel specification in profile: > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2019-11/msg00464.html > > In particular, from there: > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2020-02/msg00047.html > > While I'm at it, Ludo, if you want to continue the discussion, we've > left it on Feb 25th with this question from me to you: > >> I didn't understand from your previous message which downside you find >> to embedding the specifications.scm file. It would save efforts to the >> user and be more systematic, in the sense that it gives a guarantee to >> the user that a specifications.scm corresponds to a profile. This last >> point, I believe, is crucial. I think there were several issues we discussed: 1. We can only approximate that actual profile content; storing an approximate ‘manifest.scm’ along with the profile would IMO be deceptive. 2. It’s easy to maintain compatibility over a data format, but it’s much harder to maintain compatibility for code. I think we discussed these issues the best we could in the megathread, so I’m personally in favor of moving forward in a pragmatic way. Thanks, Ludo’.
