Am Dienstag, dem 03.05.2022 um 23:11 +0200 schrieb Maxime Devos: > Liliana Marie Prikler schreef op di 03-05-2022 om 22:04 [+0200]: > > That's why I say the long-term goal is evaluating search paths over > > multiple profiles. However, given that Guix Home is currently a > > technological preview and given on top that multiple profile > > support is "write your own shell script, will ya?", I think we can > > leave that as a nice to have for later. > > In practice, ‘nice to have later’ becomes virtually never, see e.g. > not building dependencies again and again and not having to build > dozens of variants of a package (go-build-system (*) and cargo-build- > system (**). As such, I'd rather have ‘now’. In practice, this is still not a blocker, because extra inputs for search paths affect neither the purity nor the union-build much.
> Also, this sounds like adding a new feature (multiple profiles for > Guix Home) at cost of an extra (known) bug (these multiple profiles > don't share search paths). Hyrum's Law might also come in play here. Thus an alternative would not be sharing search paths, but making those search paths themselves a part of manifests. However, while either would be doable if we bikeshed enough, having a known bug persist while we solve an important other issue is imho preferable to waiting until we all agree about what's to be done with it. Cheers
