[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: ~/.guix-profile/manifest usage with "guix package -m [manifest]" / "
Re: ~/.guix-profile/manifest usage with "guix package -m [manifest]" / "guix pack -m [manifest]" etc..
Wed, 10 Oct 2018 10:07:05 -0400
mu4e 1.0; emacs 26.1
Ludovic Courtès <address@hidden> writes:
> 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?