Re: Extending Guix without using the Guile load path

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi,

Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net> skribis:

> Keeping the directory tree of the extension separate from the “guix
> pull” profile would ensure that the core features of Guix keep working,
> no matter how badly broken an extension might be.

Yeah.

> So I’m thinking that we should instead define GUIX_EXTENSIONS_PATH as a
> list of directories containing merely the *entry points* for additional
> Guix commands.  For example, the GWL would provide a script “workflow”
> in a directory $prefix/share/guix/extensions/ (or whatever), and that
> script is a wrapped executable that sets its own %load-path and
> %load-compiled-path as needed (and determined at build time).  All Guix
> does is search for matching executables on GUIX_EXTENSIONS_PATH when
> asked for an unknown command.
>
> This is disappointingly simple, but I think it’s one of the safest
> things to do.

Yes, sounds like a good idea.

> An incidental side effect of doing things this way is that extensions
> could, in theory, be written in languages other than Guile (stretching
> the meaning of “extension” to its limits).

Oooh, this is eviiiil!  :-)

Ludo’.