Am Donnerstag, dem 05.05.2022 um 23:28 +0200 schrieb Maxime Devos: > > > Having to debate the semantics of a 2.5 year old blog posts should > > not be necessary in any > I don't think the semantics of > <https://guix.gnu.org/blog/2019/guix-profiles-in-practice/> was > debated anywhere here? Were there any differing interpretations of > that blog post? IMHO, you are ignoring the very obvious GUIX_EXTRA_PROFILES stuff, because "we have guix shell". No, guix shell is not a solution to this problem.
> Liliana Marie Prikler schreef op do 05-05-2022 om 22:53 [+0200]: > > Note that the context has always been placing multiple profiles in > > well-defined locations. It was assumed from the very first post > > that you have a use for those, or at the very least that you don't > > mind others having a use for them. > > As I understood it, it was introduced as ‘here's a feature proposal’. > By the following messages, I understood it as ‘this feature proposal > is to solve some issues (profile building speed, ...)’ -- i.e., a > means to a goal. Again, Andrew spoke about costs and benefits, wherein I assumed he meant the costs and benefits of building multiple profiles in Guix Home vs. building a single profile. I already clarified this misunderstanding (or at least assumed I did). > > > > > (7) is already achieved by "guix install" / "guix package -m". > > > The ‘source on login’ isn't though -- half-achieved? > > It's not. You can't currently declare a noop profile in any Guix > > command. A noop profile is distinct from an empty profile. > > I don't know what a ‘noop profile’ is but whatever, I don't think it > matters here given that some other things remain. Will become clear > once it is implemented I guess. In this case it's a home-profile that leads to no build action. The very concept has no meaning outside of managing multiple profiles, because it is always assumed you're modifying a particular one (or working on a transient one in the case of guix shell). > > See Andrew's objection in the light of non-managed profiles. > > I'm not seeing any fragility? And I'm not seeing the relevancy of > non-managed profiles here -- if it's non-managed how would the > alternative proposal be better there? And why would Guix Home > concern itself with non-Guix-Home profiles? So as to figure out the right order w.r.t. PATH shadowing. For instance, this proposal would allow you to install Guix extensions in a well-known location while guix itself is still the one that's used by guix pull. In order to do that, you need to set up current-guix as a noop profile and the extensions inside a profile that's below it in the search path. Cheers
