Re: Store channel specification in profile

[zimoun]

On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 at 15:59, Pierre Neidhardt <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> If I understand correctly, it's because of the manifest files need
> information like the store path and the propagated inputs, which are too
> inconvenient for a user-facing "specification file."

Hum? I am not convinced yet. :-)

For example, the record <package> contains the field "outputs" but
some packages do not use it; e.g., "xmag".
Same for "native-inputs", etc.

To me, the aim is to have something compliant between
<profile>/manifest and --manifest. And compliant does not mean that
<profile>/manifest is the entry point for the user specifications.
What I find a bit odd is: today, --manifest accepts a DSL and Guix
outputs to <profile>/manifest another DSL. Both are restricted tiny
DSL. And from all the recent discussions about manifests and so on, I
find appealing to extend the DSL of --manifest and use a subset to
write <profile>/manifest. I do not know.


Cheers,
simon