[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Questions regarding substitutes with debug output

From: Ricardo Wurmus
Subject: Re: Questions regarding substitutes with debug output
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 07:06:36 +0200
User-agent: mu4e 1.6.10; emacs 28.0.50

Olivier Dion <> writes:

> On Thu, 28 Apr 2022, Ricardo Wurmus <> wrote:
>> Olivier Dion <> writes:
>>> In my case, I prefer to avoid using package object directly.  As
>>> mentioned in GWL' manual, the version of Guix running GWL and the
>>> version of Guix used by GWL (the inferior) might not be the same.  Thus,
>>> it is not okay for reproducibility in the long term.  In my case, I use
>>> `guix time-machine --channels` as the inferior.
>> The process itself could specify channels to use for its environment.
>> Then it would be self-contained and reproducible without having to rely
>> on time-machine.
> Is this already supported in GWL?  I'm not sure if I understand how you
> would do this.  How would it be different from using time-machine?

It is not yet supported in GWL, but it would only be a small change.
The GWL has support for inferiors but currently only uses the “invoking”
Guix for packages.

We could use a different set of channels per process definition.  Each
process runs in its own environment; it doesn’t have to be all done with
the same version of Guix.

Whether or not to support this is merely a question of how easily
workflows and processes can be reused or integrated in other workflows.


reply via email to

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