Subject: Re: bug#54393: [PATCH 0/2] Add 'guix manifest' to "translate" commands to manifests

From: Ludovic Courtès <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2022 20:38:50 +0100

Hi,

zimoun <[email-masked]> skribis:

> Well, my point is, for example, the logic of "guix system" then "guix
> system <action> <--options>" appears to me easier to grasp and
> discover.  Idem with "guix import".  I think "guix vm" or "guix image"
> would not ease the discoverability.  What is unfortunate with "guix
> package" is that <action> and <--option> are both using dash-dash.
> Another story. :-)

I agree, ‘guix system’ and ‘guix import’ are pretty logical, consistent,
and discoverable; ‘guix package’ less so…

> I am not convinced that promoting a niche use-case would be a good
> idea.  For what my opinion is worth.  Well, I trust your experience if
> you think it is better.

There have been proposals in the past to follow a similar three-level
command scheme, such as ‘guix profile install’, etc.  While this would
be more “logical” in terms of categorization, it’s also less intuitive,
requires more typing, and overall may well be less ergonomic than
shorthands like ‘guix install’ or ‘guix edit’.

For ‘guix install’, we were guided by the rule of least surprise.  But
it’s true that in the case of ‘guix manifest’, it’s less obvious because
other package managers for instance don’t have such a command.

>> Thinking about it, another option would be to add an ‘--export-manifest’
>> option to ‘guix shell’ instead.
>
> Thinking about it, it would be the most coherent from my point of
> view.  And idem for --export-channels, no?

For ‘guix shell’ that would be strictly equivalent to ‘guix describe’.
I’m not convinced having ‘--export-channels’ would bring anything.

Thanks for your feedback!

Ludo’.