[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: ~/.guix-profile/manifest usage with "guix package -m [manifest]" / "
From: |
George Clemmer |
Subject: |
Re: ~/.guix-profile/manifest usage with "guix package -m [manifest]" / "guix pack -m [manifest]" etc.. |
Date: |
Tue, 02 Oct 2018 12:55:21 -0400 |
User-agent: |
mu4e 1.0; emacs 26.1 |
Hi Ludo’,
Ludovic Courtès <address@hidden> writes:
> Hello,
>
> George Clemmer <address@hidden> skribis:
>
>> YOANN hit an error when trying to do 'guix package -m
>> ~/.guix-profile/manifest'. Why would one want to do this? Maybe to
>> (re)produce a configuration previously reached by a series of 'guix
>> package -i' operations?
>
> I agree this would be nice, but be aware that this is not quite possible
> because those files don’t have enough information to rebuild packages.
>
> Starting from a few weeks/months ago, ~/.guix-profile/manifest records
> upstream VCS information, like this:
>
> ("libreoffice"
> "6.1.2.1"
> "out"
> "/gnu/store/y4l3r7nh0dg3d8qaifz96ffab4jpjl3s-libreoffice-6.1.2.1"
> (propagated-inputs ())
> (search-paths ())
> (properties
> (provenance
> (repository
> (version 0)
> (url "https://git.savannah.gnu.org/git/guix.git")
> (branch "master")
> (commit
> "f8e710684e5c3f866413dff825ba17bdffceac5d")))))
>
> With this info and with inferiors and channels, it becomes possible to
> rebuild the package (if we make simplifying assumptions.)
>
> So I understand the need and agree that it would be nice. But for now,
> I strongly recommend “manifests as passed to ‘guix package -m’” because
> they’re much more expressive, especially with the introduction of the
> inferior API:
>
> https://issues.guix.info/issue/32759
IIUC, you are describing more-or-less "exact" (re)production of an
existing profile. But that's not what I was thinking of when I said
"(re)produce a configuration". Rather, I was thinking (as described
elsewhere in the original post) of the ability to produce “manifests as
passed to ‘guix package -m’” from an existing profile.
Why? In part to smooth over a puzzling inconsistency in guix
configuration: Systems configuration is "declarative" but user-profiles
may be "incremental" ('guix package -i') or "declarative" ('guix package
-m').
My thinking is that if there was an easy way to produce “manifests as
passed to ‘guix package -m’” from profiles, it would be a handy: an easy
way for someone that has gone down the incremental path to switch to
manifests and an easy way to update one's manifest after incremental
changes.
HTH - George
- Re: ~/.guix-profile/manifest usage with "guix package -m [manifest]" / "guix pack -m [manifest]" etc.., George Clemmer, 2018/10/01
- RE: ~/.guix-profile/manifest usage with "guix package -m [manifest]" / "guix pack -m [manifest]" etc.., YOANN P, 2018/10/01
- Re: ~/.guix-profile/manifest usage with "guix package -m [manifest]" / "guix pack -m [manifest]" etc.., Ludovic Courtès, 2018/10/02
- Re: ~/.guix-profile/manifest usage with "guix package -m [manifest]" / "guix pack -m [manifest]" etc..,
George Clemmer <=
- Re: ~/.guix-profile/manifest usage with "guix package -m [manifest]" / "guix pack -m [manifest]" etc.., Ricardo Wurmus, 2018/10/02
- Re: ~/.guix-profile/manifest usage with "guix package -m [manifest]" / "guix pack -m [manifest]" etc.., George Clemmer, 2018/10/02
- Re: ~/.guix-profile/manifest usage with "guix package -m [manifest]" / "guix pack -m [manifest]" etc.., Ludovic Courtès, 2018/10/08
- Re: ~/.guix-profile/manifest usage with "guix package -m [manifest]" / "guix pack -m [manifest]" etc.., George Clemmer, 2018/10/10
- Re: ~/.guix-profile/manifest usage with "guix package -m [manifest]" / "guix pack -m [manifest]" etc.., Ludovic Courtès, 2018/10/11