GNU bug report logs -
#38529
Make --pure the default for `guix environment'?
Previous Next
Reported by: Pierre Neidhardt <mail <at> ambrevar.xyz>
Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2019 15:43:02 UTC
Severity: normal
Done: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>
Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.
Full log
View this message in rfc822 format
Hello!
zimoun <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com> skribis:
> On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 at 11:35, Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org> wrote:
>
>> > Wouldn't having a new name for the new behaviour avoid breakage in this
>> > situation?
>>
>> Yes, that’s correct (that’s also one of the suggestions Konrad made).
>
> Is this statement acted? Is it the consensus by all the maintainers?
All I’m saying is that what EuAndreh wrote above is correct; I’m not
stating anything as to what solution we should implement. :-)
> And I am not clear about what will happens for "guix environment"?
> Deprecate for sure.
> But after X time: removed or frozen?
I guess that’s the whole point of deprecation.
> As Arne described the process (bottom of [1]), "guix environment" will
> become a kind-of alias of "guix shell/<name-it>". Right?
Yes.
>> We could take that route. What would we call it, though? I don’t like
>> “guix shell” because it doesn’t quite reflect what the command is
>> about. No good idea, though.
>
> Argh! Naming is hard.
> Something that reflects what the command is about: "guix environment"?
> (joke!! ;-))
Yeah!
> Why do you say that "guix shell" does not reflect what the command is about?
> Because the command spawns a new shell with options (expanding it,
> isolating it, etc.)
The command does not necessarily spawn a new shell; it spawns a command
in a well-defined environment, and that command might be a shell.
Thanks,
Ludo’.
This bug report was last modified 2 years and 358 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.