Alex Kost skribis:
> From 7641752189cfc4ad3c85a042ea9eeea2b39435b4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Alex Kost
> Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2014 00:03:53 +0400
> Subject: [PATCH 1/2] profiles: Add 'manifest-transaction'.
>
> * guix/profiles.scm (): New record-type.
> (manifest-perform-transaction): New
Ludovic Courtès (2014-08-16 16:24 +0400) wrote:
> (Sorry for replying to messages in the wrong order. :-))
Sorry, I had sent old patches before you sent this message :) Ignore
my previous message (with the subject "[PATCH] manifest-transaction")
please.
> Alex Kost skribis:
>
>> Ok, I'm attac
(Sorry for replying to messages in the wrong order. :-))
Alex Kost skribis:
> Ok, I'm attaching these patches. But there are several issues there:
>
> - I fixed a typo in "tests/profiles.scm" (“profile” -> “profiles”) – Is
> it ok to do this in that commit or should there be a separate commi
Alex Kost skribis:
> (define* (manifest-show-transaction manifest transaction #:key dry-run?)
> "Display what will/would be installed/removed from MANIFEST by TRANSACTION."
[...]
> (format (current-error-port)
> (N_ "The following package ~:[will~;would~] be
> ~a:~%
Alex Kost (2014-08-14 00:58 +0400) wrote:
> Ludovic Courtès (2014-08-13 20:03 +0400) wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> Could you turn the above thing into a patch with a commit log? Bonus
>> points for ‘manifest-perform-transaction’ unit tests. Make sure to add
>> a copyright line for yourself in profiles.s
Ludovic Courtès (2014-08-13 20:03 +0400) wrote:
> Alex Kost skribis:
>
> [...]
>
>> (I excluded “upgrade” part as it's the same as “install”, and
>> ‘show-transaction’ is almost the same as ‘show-what-to-remove/install’
>> from "package.scm".)
>
> Yes.
>
> Could you turn the above thing into a pa
Alex Kost skribis:
> I realized there could be a problem with (PACKAGE OUTPUT) elements.
> They should be transformed into manifest entries, but
> "guix/scripts/package.scm" uses ‘package->manifest-entry*’ for that, so
> this cannot be performed in (guix profiles) module. Perhaps “install”
> sho
Ludovic Courtès (2014-08-12 23:50 +0400) wrote:
[...]
>>> What about introducing a type that would contain
>>> a list of packages to install, to remove, and to upgrade, and we could do:
>>
>> I think only “install” part should contain a list of packages (or
>> (PACKAGE OUTPUT) things). Upgradin
Alex Kost skribis:
> Ludovic Courtès (2014-08-12 18:19 +0400) wrote:
[...]
>> Perfect. I’ve pushed it, followed by a patch that changes
>> guix/scripts/package.scm to use ‘manifest-add’ (comments welcome.)
>
> Thanks, you forgot to delete ‘same-package?’ from ‘guix-package’
> [‘process-actions
Ludovic Courtès (2014-08-12 18:19 +0400) wrote:
> Alex Kost skribis:
>
>> Thanks for pointing. I've never contributed to a real project, so I
>> don't know the rules actually :)
>
> No problem. :-) There might still be unwritten rules, but we can fix
> that as we go.
>
>> From af4b8495969d70d5
Alex Kost skribis:
> Thanks for pointing. I've never contributed to a real project, so I
> don't know the rules actually :)
No problem. :-) There might still be unwritten rules, but we can fix
that as we go.
> From af4b8495969d70d59aa9f3f296628daeaf80b0d2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Ale
Hello,
Ludovic Courtès (2014-08-12 00:54 +0400) wrote:
> Alex Kost skribis:
>
>> - A part of code for installing/upgrading/removing was extracted from
>> ‘guix-package’ function (from ‘process-actions’ more precisely). So
>> the new function (I named it ‘process-package-actions’) can be use
12 matches
Mail list logo
