On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 04:50:23PM +0000, ng0 wrote: > On 17-02-09 15:08:35, John Darrington wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 01:30:48PM +0000, Pjotr Prins wrote: > > @FOSDEM we concluded that GUIX_PACKAGE_PATH does not necessarily work > > that wel. I added to my guix-notes the following: > > > > +Note that, even though GUIX_PACKAGE_PATH can be a feasible way of > > +adding and maintaining packages, it has two largish downsides: (1) it > > +is removed from the main package tree and therefore not easily shared > > +and integrated and (2) to remain compatible you need to juggle two git > > +trees which may go out of synch. > > > > > > Those are indeed cavaets. But whether they are "downsides" or "largish" is > > a matter for individual users to decide. > > > > Some people 1) don't want to share the pacakges they create; and/or 2) are > > prepared to accept the effort keeping the two things in sync. > > > > J' > > There's a third case: packages which can simply be "as they are" and > knowing they will not end up in upstream master tree. > It is easier for me to maintain and experiment with what's the best way > to provide multiple packages of development versions which depend on > each other in a guix-package-path, rather than maintain yet another > branch or yet another full blown guix master repository.
Just to be clear - I agree with both your statements. I merely mean to warn people that read my notes on the effect of such a choice. It is something I learnt the hard way. I will still use GUIX_PACKAGE_PATH until we get channels. That mystical solution that will solve all my problems ;) Same for 'guix pull'. It is merely a warning. Pj.
