On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 12:11:19AM -0800, Chris Marusich wrote: > Pjotr Prins <pjotr.publi...@thebird.nl> writes: > > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 06:54:30PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > >> Pjotr Prins <pjotr.publi...@thebird.nl> skribis: > >> > >> > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 02:22:48PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > >> >> You can always get the right source code by running “guix build -S > >> >> package”. > >> >> > >> >> OTOH having the source directly in the “debug” (or “source”?) output as > >> >> you suggest would be more convenient. > >> >> > >> >> The only downside is the extra size of the “debug” output. Most of the > >> >> time that’s a price people are happy to pay when they are installing the > >> >> “debug” output. But sometimes maybe not. > >> > > >> > How about a :debug-full switch? > >> > >> There’s no switch, only a “debug” output. > > > > yes, yes. I meant a "debug-full" output. > > We have "guix build -S foo" which fetches the source. It sounds like > you're suggesting that we remove this and replace it with a "source" (or > "debug-full") output for each package, so to get the source you would > run "guix build foo:source" instead. Is my understanding correct?
With binaries and debug info. Yes. The current :debug does not include the sources which makes debugging hard(er). Pj.