Re: Reorganizing guix package commands

[John Darrington]

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 11:57:59AM +0300, Alex Kost wrote:
     I've just sent a message to bug#22587??, but I realized it is better to
     discuss it here in a separate thread.
     
     So, I think there are inconsistencies in guix commands.  For example, we
     have "guix system build" to build a system, but "guix build" to build a
     package.  IMO "guix package build" would be a better choice.
     
     In general, I think it would be good to move package commands inside
     "guix package", e.g, to make "guix package lint", "guix package size",
     etc.

I'm not saying that you're wrong.  But I think the idea is that guix build
is a command for development, whereas guix package is a command for users.
I think the two need to be kept separate.


     Wouldn't it be great to make some breaking changes?  I mean if this or
     any other proposal on "guix" command structure is reasonable, I think
     it's just the time for it while Guix is still alpha/beta.  Otherwise,
     the current command structure will never be changed.


I wouldn't mind seeing a few of the more recent commands as options to 
(a possibly renamed) guix build.  For example it seems to me that guix
environment is specific to a package so perhaps that is a good candidate.

But I don't know.  Maybe it's still too early to make changes.  If such
changes are to be made, then we should get them right.

J'
     

-- 
Avoid eavesdropping.  Send strong encryted email.
PGP Public key ID: 1024D/2DE827B3 
fingerprint = 8797 A26D 0854 2EAB 0285  A290 8A67 719C 2DE8 27B3
See http://sks-keyservers.net or any PGP keyserver for public key.

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature