GNU bug report logs - #30410
[PATCH 2/2] doc: Document the --manifest option for guix pack.

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: myglc2 <at> gmail.com
To: Konrad Hinsen <konrad.hinsen <at> fastmail.net>
Cc: 30410 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: [bug#30410] [PATCH 2/2] doc: Document the --manifest option for guix pack.
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2018 14:15:14 -0500

Hi Konrad,

Very cool patch!

On 02/10/2018 at 12:35 Konrad Hinsen writes:

> +for use on machines that do not have Guix installed. Note that you can
> +specify @emph{either} a manifest file @emph{or} a list of packages,
> +but not both.

FWIW, here are a few thoughts ...

It would be helpful to add an example or two of "list of packages".

The term manifest has a few meanings in guix. There are the "input
manifests" forms accepted by '--manifest=' and the "output manifests"
produced by 'guix package' (e.g.,$HOME/.guix-profile/manifest). Only
input manifests are documented now. But ISTM there may eventually be a
tool to produce an input manifest from a user's profile that has grown
organically through install/remove operations. If/when that happens,
"output manifests" might also be mentioned in the doc.

Currently the doc doesn't show an actual manifest. Rather it shows 2
"input manifest" forms that are acceptable to '--manifest=' ...

          (use-package-modules guile emacs)
          (packages->manifest
           (list emacs
                 guile-2.0
                 ;; Use a specific package output.
                 (list guile-2.0 "debug")))

... and ...

(specifications->manifest
           '("emacs" "guile <at> 2.2" "guile <at> 2.2:debug"))

These can be a source of confusion, typos, and error (or at least they
were to me). So I wonder: Does adding a 3rd "list of packages" form make
the option murkier? Would a separate option be simpler to document/use?

HTH - George

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.