Re: Reorganizing guix package commands

[Alex Kost]

John Darrington (2016-04-18 19:10 +0300) wrote:

> 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.

Sorry, I don't understand this point: we all are users of "guix"
command.  It looks natural to me that when you want to build a system,
you write "guix system build", and when you want to build a package, you
write "guix package build"; when you want to install a package, you
can write "guix package install".  Why a user wouldn't want just to
build a package?  For example, I do it all the time when I want just to
try a package without installing.

>      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.

Wow, I have a reverse impression: I think "guix environment" is the
worst candidate for moving elsewhere (I mean it is good as it is now)
and it should stay as a stand-alone command.

-- 
Alex