Chris Marusich <cmmarus...@gmail.com> writes:
> Ricardo Wurmus <ricardo.wur...@mdc-berlin.de> writes:
>> 1.) the environment includes glibc and its executables. Is this ever
>> desired? When loading an environment from a file or from a package
>> (i.e. when “--ad-hoc” is NOT provided) “guix environment” uses
>> “package-environment-inputs”, which runs “package->bag” and then
>> “bag-transitive-inputs”. The resulting list of packages is then
>> used as the inputs for a profile derivation. That seems a bit
>> Would it not be sufficient to use only the direct inputs of the
>> package as the inputs to the profile derivation? That way “guix
>> environment foo” would behave just like “guix environment --ad-hoc
>> input-a-of-foo input-b-of-foo input-c-of-foo”.
>> Is there a reason why it creates a whole bag and dumps its contents
>> into the inputs of the profile derivation?
> My interpretation of the intended behavior of "guix environment foo" is
> that is that only the inputs of (the bag of) foo should show up in the
> environment, not the transitive closure of inputs. I am surprised to
> hear that that is not the case, but perhaps I am missing something.
Yeah, this was also quite a surprise to me.
David, would it be wrong for us to change the behaviour such that only
direct inputs end up in the environment?
Aside from this issue, I find it worrying that the graft for glibc does
not end up in the environment. This is a serious problem for those
who use “guix environment” on RHEL 6.
Ludo, do you know if this is a more general bug or if it is due to the
design of “guix environment”?