Re: ’guix package --export-manifest’ using ’@version’?

[zimoun]

Hi,

On Thu, 07 Jul 2022 at 17:13, Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> wrote:

> The “@X.Y” bit is added only when necessary to disambiguate the package
> spec.  So with today’s Guix, we have:

Yes, but it is not what I reported initially [1]; it was:

1: 868rp8zosc.fsf@gmail.com">https://yhetil.org/guix/868rp8zosc.fsf@gmail.com

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
$ guix time-machine --commit=fb32a38db1d3a6d9bc970e14df5be95e59a8ab02 \
       -- package -p gnu/store/vmn2b3cmfwf250i65rgvkamyr4971q7m-profile
       --export-manifest

;; This "manifest" file can be passed to 'guix package -m' to reproduce
;; the content of your profile.  This is "symbolic": it only specifies
;; package names.  To reproduce the exact same profile, you also need to
;; capture the channels being used, as returned by "guix describe".
;; See the "Replicating Guix" section in the manual.

(specifications->manifest
(list "python" "python-numpy"))
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
$ guix package -p gnu/store/vmn2b3cmfwf250i65rgvkamyr4971q7m-profile \
       --export-manifest
;; This "manifest" file can be passed to 'guix package -m' to reproduce
;; the content of your profile.  This is "symbolic": it only specifies
;; package names.  To reproduce the exact same profile, you also need to
;; capture the channels being used, as returned by "guix describe".
;; See the "Replicating Guix" section in the manual.

(specifications->manifest
(list "python@3.8" "python-numpy@1.17"))
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---


However, I am not able to reproduce; because I removed this profile – it
comes from my attempt to reproduce Docker pack.  Other said, note that
the profile is not in /gnu/store/ but extracted from a Docker pack built
with --save-provenance.

Trying other examples, I am not able to see it again.  Hum?!


Sorry for the noise if it is a bug between the keyboard and the chair. ;-)


> In these cases, we cannot omit the “@X.Y” bit because the manifest would
> then designate something different.

I agree.


Sorry for the noise.  The current behaviour is the one we agree and is
expected.  I thought that I have observed another.  Hum?!

Well, time for me to take summer holidays? :-)


Cheers,
simon