Hello!
elaexuo...@wilsonb.com writes:
> FWIW, I never expected `/manifest' to encode "this is what the user
> ordered," so much as "this is the recipe for (deterministically) reproducing
> this exact profile." For the former we have `packages->manifest',
> `specifications->manifest' etc. The latt
Thank you for the direct reply, zimoun.
> [The problem] is a pragmatic one. As any good Zen says: "Now is better than
> never. Although never is often better than *right* now."
Okay. If that is the case, then I very much empathize with the problem.
> Going from imperative/sequential "install, pu
Dear,
On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 at 10:03, George Clemmer wrote:
> "manifest" occurs ~600 times in the ./guix directory. I am guessing its
> use is deeply embedded with developers. If so, renaming it internally
> seems like a bad idea. And if we write our internal manifest into the
> profile and call i
Hi zimoun,
zimoun writes:
> In contradiction with what I wrote above, I agree. :-)
>
> /manifest should be renamed /specifications or
> something like that.
>
> And a comment could be inserted in this file saying: internal usage, do
> not modify, etc..
>
> WDYT?
Sure, that would work. But, on
Dear,
On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 at 20:33, elaexuo...@wilsonb.com wrote:
>> 1. We can only approximate that actual profile content; storing
>>an approximate ‘manifest.scm’ along with the profile would IMO be
>>deceptive.
>
> Is this a technical barrier or a pragmatic one?
[...]
> If the problem
> 1. We can only approximate that actual profile content; storing
>an approximate ‘manifest.scm’ along with the profile would IMO be
>deceptive.
Is this a technical barrier or a pragmatic one?
If it is the former, then I don't quite grok why. I explain my reasoning in
great detail in a pr
Hi,
George Clemmer skribis:
> Yes, only 'manifest.scm' is in the doc, but '.guix-profile/manifest'
> smacks a user in the face pretty quickly which leads to these messy
> questions.
That’s something I had not anticipated. It’s an interesting lesson!
Ludo’.
Hi,
zimoun skribis:
> On Sun, 14 Jun 2020 at 17:24, Ludovic Courtès 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.
>>
Hi Pierre,
Pierre Neidhardt skribis:
> Ludovic Courtès writes:
>
>> I think there were several issues we discussed:
>
> Allow me to reiterate, at the risk of bikeshedding... :)
>
>> 1. We can only approximate that actual profile content; storing
>> an approximate ‘manifest.scm’ along wit
Dear,
On Mon, 15 Jun 2020 at 22:51, George Clemmer wrote:
> ISTM we set ourselves up for confused users and a lot of explaining by
> labeling two very different things with same name :-0
I think there is a confusion here. The file /manifest is an
internal detail implementation and the user sho
Dear,
On Mon, 15 Jun 2020 at 19:08, elaexuo...@wilsonb.com wrote:
> I went ahead and read through the threads that Pierre shared in a different
> reply. For posterity and to collect my own thoughts, let me see if I can
> distill the discussion so far:
[...]
> If the answer to the final question
This is a good point. The naming of `/manifest' does invite confusion
when first encountering it.
That said, I am pretty sure there is a place for `/manifest.scm'.
Given the `--manifest' option to several commands, it makes profiles first
class. In particular, it would let users easily `guix pack'
Ludovic Courtès writes:
> elaexuo...@wilsonb.com skribis:
>> First, am I missing something? Is there a better/preferred way to make use of
>> the `manifest' files in profiles?
> You’re not missing anything: it’s a longstanding source of confusion
> that these ‘manifest’ files are not like the
zimoun,
In response to your previous email, I gave a long-form reply to the general
discussion. However, I just want to note that the personal issue I am
encountering isn't with user profiles; instead it is with those generated by
`guix environment'.
In particular, I was trying to use `guix pack'
> It is more "complicated" than that. The detailed explanations are in
> the mega thread. :-) In short and from my understanding, going from
> "/manifest" to "-m manifest.scm" cannot be done in the general
> case because two concepts -- imperative vs declarative -- are not well
> aligned. Pragmat
Hi,
On Sun, 14 Jun 2020 at 17:24, Ludovic Courtès 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 mainta
Dear,
On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 at 10:40, elaexuo...@wilsonb.com wrote:
> In an attempt to tar up the *build* environment for a package to share with a
> colleague, I encountered this:
>
> [env]$ guix pack -m $GUIX_ENVIRONMENT/manifest
> (manifest ...): Wrong number of arguments
>
> From playing
Hi,
Ludovic Courtès writes:
> I think there were several issues we discussed:
Allow me to reiterate, at the risk of bikeshedding... :)
> 1. We can only approximate that actual profile content; storing
> an approximate ‘manifest.scm’ along with the profile would IMO be
> deceptive.
Hi,
Pierre Neidhardt skribis:
> Indeed, that was discussed at length but we still need to reach a
> consensus :)
>
> I personally disagree with the --export-manifest suggestion (which may
> be one of the reasons why this is stalling :p).
Ah, OK.
> Links to the related discussions (lots to read
Hi,
elaexuo...@wilsonb.com skribis:
> In an attempt to tar up the *build* environment for a package to share with a
> colleague, I encountered this:
>
> [env]$ guix pack -m $GUIX_ENVIRONMENT/manifest
> (manifest ...): Wrong number of arguments
>
> From playing around a bit, my guess is th
In an attempt to tar up the *build* environment for a package to share with a
colleague, I encountered this:
[env]$ guix pack -m $GUIX_ENVIRONMENT/manifest
(manifest ...): Wrong number of arguments
From playing around a bit, my guess is that the `/manifest' files are
just human-readable s
21 matches
Mail list logo
