Hi, Ricardo Wurmus <rek...@elephly.net> skribis:
> Keeping the directory tree of the extension separate from the “guix > pull” profile would ensure that the core features of Guix keep working, > no matter how badly broken an extension might be. Yeah. > So I’m thinking that we should instead define GUIX_EXTENSIONS_PATH as a > list of directories containing merely the *entry points* for additional > Guix commands. For example, the GWL would provide a script “workflow” > in a directory $prefix/share/guix/extensions/ (or whatever), and that > script is a wrapped executable that sets its own %load-path and > %load-compiled-path as needed (and determined at build time). All Guix > does is search for matching executables on GUIX_EXTENSIONS_PATH when > asked for an unknown command. > > This is disappointingly simple, but I think it’s one of the safest > things to do. Yes, sounds like a good idea. > An incidental side effect of doing things this way is that extensions > could, in theory, be written in languages other than Guile (stretching > the meaning of “extension” to its limits). Oooh, this is eviiiil! :-) Ludo’.
