Re: "guix pack -f docker" does too much work

[Simon Tournier]

Hi,

On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 at 20:36, Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net> wrote:

>> In past discussions (such as the implementation of the 'RPM' pack
>> format) we had concluded that a single derivation was preferable.  Large
>> chunks to be sent to offload machines over the network are not very
>> practical, and as Ludovic said, they also require more store space.

Well, the argument “require more store space” appears to me as an
“half-joke”when you know all the space that is required by Guix for a
day-to-day usage. :-) I don’t buy it. ;-)

About offload, indeed.  And this can be a “bad surprise”.


> Dependent on the situation I can see one approach to be preferrable to
> the other, and in other situations this could very well be reversed.

I agree.

> Can we expose this choice to the command line interface of "guix pack"?

Maybe the switch could be with the option ’--no-offload’ instead of
adding yet another one.

Cheers,
simon