GNU bug report logs - #50960
[PATCH 00/10] Add 'guix shell' to subsume 'guix environment'

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler <at> gmail.com>
To: Ludovic Courtès <ludovic.courtes <at> inria.fr>, Konrad Hinsen <konrad.hinsen <at> fastmail.net>
Cc: 50960 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: [bug#50960] [PATCH 00/10] Add 'guix shell' to subsume 'guix environment'
Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2021 11:15:16 +0200

Hi Ludo,

Am Donnerstag, den 07.10.2021, 10:34 +0200 schrieb Ludovic Courtès:
> > The behavior of "guix shell" with and without arguments is
> > sufficiently different, which will make it a challenge to document,
> > and then a challenge for users to understand. And part of the
> > criticism related to the tacit execution of files is about the
> > convenience for 1) vs. the risk in 2).
> 
> ‘guix shell’ without arguments is equivalent to ‘guix environment -f
> guix.scm’ or ‘guix environment -m manifest.scm’.
> 
> > So... how about making this two different commands? They could of
> > course share most of the implementation.
> > 
> > I'd use "guix shell" for the scenario that actually starts a shell,
> > and something different, perhaps "guix process", for the
> > infrastructure command for use in scripts.
> 
> I don’t think there’s enough to warrant two different commands (and
> perhaps we could leave out the auto-detection of ‘guix.scm’ or
> ‘manifest.scm’ is that proves to be too controversial).
Leaving out the auto-detection of ‘guix.scm’ and ‘manifest.scm’ for now
is a good idea, given that Guix itself would be an edge-case for that.

Perhaps to avoid this trouble, guix shell could read a file that simply
specifies which arguments to add one line at a time e.g.

  ;; .guix-shell-rc
  --manifest=manifest.scm

or

  ;; .guix-shell-rc
  --load=guix.scm

Similar behaviour is used in other (GNU) tools with lots of available
arguments, which operate on a directory basis, e.g. stow.

> Maybe you’re hinting at the name and the fact that it suggests it’s
> starting a shell.  I’m not fond of it, notably for that reason.  For
> the record, it came out as the only proposal that seemed viable to
> me:
> 
>   https://issues.guix.gnu.org/38529#17
> 
> Thoughts?
I think “guix shell” is fine as-is.  People typically don't complain
that “sh somefile.sh” doesn't launch a shell, so the same reasoning can
be applied to Guix tools in my opinion.  We would still have the always
non-intuitive naming choices of “do”, “start” and “run” at our disposal
if we ever need to discard the shell.

Regards,
Liliana

Previous Next

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