[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: guix: workflow: command not found

From: zimoun
Subject: Re: guix: workflow: command not found
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 11:11:03 +0200

Hi Ricardo,

On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 at 20:07, Ricardo Wurmus <> wrote:

>     export GUIX_EXTENSIONS_PATH=$HOME/.guix-profile/share/guix/extensions
> Originally I had hoped it would be set automatically due to a search
> path specification on the “guix” package, but this doesn’t work as
> intended, so it must be set manually.
> I’ll amend the documentation / tutorial.

Some time ago, we had this discussion [1]:

        Let take an example, the recent Ludo’s explorer.


        It is easy to transform it as an extension and then use “guix explore”.

        But 2 things are strict:

         - user side: GUIX_EXTENSIONS_PATH
         - extensioner side: define-module

        Maybe I am wrong and I miss something.  From my understanding,

         - the file must be located at $GUIX_EXTENSIONS_PATH
         - the module must be defined as (guix extension explore)

        because of:

        --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
            (match (search-path (extension-directories)
                                (format #f "~a.scm" command))
               (resolve-interface `(guix extensions ,command)))))
        --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

        So, taking the previous example, it would be easy to say: hey, clone
        this, export GUIX_EXTENSIONS_PATH as /path/to/checkout and run “guix
        explore”.  But, to work, the repo must have the structure:

         - guix-explorer
           - guix
             - extensions
               - explore.scm

        because the module and in the same time $GUIX_EXTENSIONS_PATH must be
        “guix-explore/guix/extensions“.  I feel something is wrong.  And I
        initially proposed to append ’/guix/extensions’ by default to
        GUIX_EXTENSIONS_PATH in ’extension-directories’.

        I do not understand why it should be a problem.

        BTW, for packages as GWL, it does not change.  It is just an agreement
        between the two sides, right?

        1: <>

and, from my understanding, the current convention is awkward and I
would prefer the minor tweak I am proposing in Guix side and adjust
accordingly on GWL side.

I would like to document more about extensions because it appears to me
a killer feature but the convention for GUIX_EXTENSIONS_PATH does not
seem nice and once we will communicate about such extension feature, it
will be impossible to change the convention (because backcompatibility).



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]