Hi, zimoun <zimon.touto...@gmail.com> skribis:
> On Sun, 14 Jun 2020 at 17:24, Ludovic Courtès <l...@gnu.org> wrote: > >> 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. > > By pragmatic way, you mean: > > - let the format of <profile>/manifest as it is, > - write '--export-manifest' as an approximation > > right? For example, yes. > Well, I personally changed my workflow and now I always use manifest > files. And the situation that I described in the manifest about the > "Working Scientific" doing install, pull, install, pull, remove, > install, etc. is rooted in bad practises, so it should be avoided. > > Therefore, I agree that '--export-manifest' is the right approach, as an > helping tool; too bad for some corner cases. :-) Yeah, I think our goal is just to provide a tool to migrate from the “imperative” way to the declarative way. Once people have gotten started with manifests, they no longer need that migration tool. Thanks, Ludo’.
