Subject: [bug#58583] [PATCH 0/1] scripts: package: Forbid installation of the guix package.

From: Maxim Cournoyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2022 11:47:31 -0400

Hi Simon,

zimoun <[email-masked]> writes:

> Hi Maxim,
>
> On Thu, 27 Oct 2022 at 16:04, Maxim Cournoyer <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>>>> +    (report-error (G_ "the 'guix' package should not be installed~%"))
>>>
>>> Instead of an error, I would prefer a warning.  Because, sometimes it is
>>> useful to have this Guix library. :-)
>>
>> The Guix API would be available without having to 'guix install guix' in
>> the first place, no?
>
> Not necessary or I am missing something.  For instance, you want to
> build some Guile application relying on the Guix library; similarly as
> you have, say, guile-commonmark or any other Guile packages.
>
> Yes, it is possible to do without installing the package guix but it is
> not handy.  Aside, it is not always clear which revision of the API is
> available when the package guix fixes it.
>
> For instance, if an user packs their Guile application using some other
> Guile libraries including the Guix library, then for developing, it
> becomes not possible to just locally create a profile.
>
> Well, I do not have a strong opinion on that, for what it is worth, I
> would prefer a strong warning instead of an hard error.  But maybe I am
> missing something.

Does the benefit of fixing the Guix API used via a user profile
installed Guix package outweigh the cons of downgrading the version of
guix used as the user's package manager?  I don't think so.  By
installing the inner 'guix' into your user profile, you are basically
downgrading its version compared to the one you used to install it.
That's a pretty confusing thing to happen for most users.

As paren suggested, I think it's best to enter a dedicated 'guix shell'
profile with Guix when developing with the Guix API, else use the 'guix
repl' ability to run scripts.

It may be slightly inconvenient, but it's better than allowing Guix to
be silently downgraded upon unsuspecting users, in my opinion.

-- 
Thanks,
Maxim