Hi, On Thu, 07 Jul 2022 at 17:13, Ludovic Courtès <[email protected]> wrote:
> The “@X.Y” bit is added only when necessary to disambiguate the package > spec. So with today’s Guix, we have: Yes, but it is not what I reported initially [1]; it was: 1: https://yhetil.org/guix/[email protected] --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- $ guix time-machine --commit=fb32a38db1d3a6d9bc970e14df5be95e59a8ab02 \ -- package -p gnu/store/vmn2b3cmfwf250i65rgvkamyr4971q7m-profile --export-manifest ;; This "manifest" file can be passed to 'guix package -m' to reproduce ;; the content of your profile. This is "symbolic": it only specifies ;; package names. To reproduce the exact same profile, you also need to ;; capture the channels being used, as returned by "guix describe". ;; See the "Replicating Guix" section in the manual. (specifications->manifest (list "python" "python-numpy")) --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- $ guix package -p gnu/store/vmn2b3cmfwf250i65rgvkamyr4971q7m-profile \ --export-manifest ;; This "manifest" file can be passed to 'guix package -m' to reproduce ;; the content of your profile. This is "symbolic": it only specifies ;; package names. To reproduce the exact same profile, you also need to ;; capture the channels being used, as returned by "guix describe". ;; See the "Replicating Guix" section in the manual. (specifications->manifest (list "[email protected]" "[email protected]")) --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- However, I am not able to reproduce; because I removed this profile – it comes from my attempt to reproduce Docker pack. Other said, note that the profile is not in /gnu/store/ but extracted from a Docker pack built with --save-provenance. Trying other examples, I am not able to see it again. Hum?! Sorry for the noise if it is a bug between the keyboard and the chair. ;-) > In these cases, we cannot omit the “@X.Y” bit because the manifest would > then designate something different. I agree. Sorry for the noise. The current behaviour is the one we agree and is expected. I thought that I have observed another. Hum?! Well, time for me to take summer holidays? :-) Cheers, simon
