Alex Kost <alez...@gmail.com> skribis: > I've just sent a message to bug#22587¹, but I realized it is better to > discuss it here in a separate thread. > > So, I think there are inconsistencies in guix commands. For example, we > have "guix system build" to build a system, but "guix build" to build a > package. IMO "guix package build" would be a better choice. > > In general, I think it would be good to move package commands inside > "guix package", e.g, to make "guix package lint", "guix package size", > etc.
Why not consider “package” to be the default word? :-) I can see how adding “package” everywhere helps categorize things mentally, but as a user interface, I think it would be rather bad. Also, it’s not that simple: “guix size” can take a store item instead of a package name, “guix graph” cannot do it yet but it would be useful if it could (“guix graph -t references $(readlink -f /run/current-system)”), etc. I still think that having aliases like “guix install” as Andy proposed long ago would be useful, though I never started working on it. There are probably other improvements to do around “guix package” (maybe turning some of its options into separate sub-commands as was suggested before.) All we need is a clear view of where we’re going and patches. :-) > Wouldn't it be great to make some breaking changes? I mean if this or > any other proposal on "guix" command structure is reasonable, I think > it's just the time for it while Guix is still alpha/beta. Otherwise, > the current command structure will never be changed. I agree, now is the right time to break everything! ;-) Ludo’.
