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

Previous Next

Package: guix-patches;

Reported by: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>

Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2021 10:22:02 UTC

Severity: normal

Tags: patch

Done: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>

Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.

Full log


View this message in rfc822 format

From: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
To: Leo Famulari <leo <at> famulari.name>
Cc: 50960 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: [bug#50960] [PATCH 00/10] Add 'guix shell' to subsume 'guix environment'
Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2021 15:38:55 +0200
Hi,

Leo Famulari <leo <at> famulari.name> skribis:

> On Fri, Oct 08, 2021 at 09:43:19AM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>> No, it’s the same.  However, ‘-D’ here affects only the immediately
>> following package, whereas ‘--ad-hoc’ would affect every package that
>> follows.
>
> I must not know the correct terminology; that's what I was trying to
> ask.
>
> Can we keep the old behavior?  Or do we think this new way of doing it
> is better?

What do you mean by “old behavior”?

I think there’s large consensus that ‘--ad-hoc’ should be the default,
and that’s the main motivation behind this patch series.

As for ‘-D’: we could arrange so that it has effect on all the following
packages.  However, if we did that, we’d need to reintroduce ‘--ad-hoc’
to cancel the effect of ‘-D’.

More importantly, I think having ‘-D’ affect only the immediately
following package is more consistent with typical usage—I don’t think
I’ve ever run ‘guix environment foo bar baz’ to get the merged
development environments of all three packages.

Thanks,
Ludo’.




This bug report was last modified 3 years and 210 days ago.

Previous Next


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