Re: ~/.guix-profile/manifest usage with "guix package -m [manifest]" / "guix pack -m [manifest]" etc..

[George Clemmer]

Ludovic Courtès <address@hidden> writes:

> Hello,
>
> Ricardo Wurmus <address@hidden> skribis:
>
[...]
>> You can put this in a file “manifest-to-manifest.scm” and run it like
>> this from a Guix source checkout:
>>
>>     ./pre-inst-env guile -s manifest-to-manifest.scm /path/to/.guix-profile 
>> > my-manifest.scm
>
> I like how the script’s name highlights the naming inconsistency.  :-)

... and that we should consider renaming one of these "manifests" ;-)

>> You can then proceed to install the generated manifest with:
>>
>>     guix package -m my-manifest.scm -p /path/to/new/.guix-profile
>>
>> If that’s what you’re looking for I suppose we could find a place for
>> something like that under the umbrella of “guix package”.
>
> The problem, as I see it, is that this might give a false impression
> that both “manifests” are entirely equivalent, which is not the case.

This "false impression" is caused by the "naming inconsistency" (above)
rather that by the proposed function, isn't it?

> I sympathize with George’s idea of making it easier to move from the
> incremental style to the declarative style, but I wonder if we should go
> beyond suggesting to basically copy the package names shown in “guix
> package -I” to the manifest file.

Does this mean to have "manifest-to-manifest.scm" add any non-default
(in the current Guix version) package outputs and versions to the
package specifications produced? Or something else?

- George