Hello, Ricardo Wurmus <rek...@elephly.net> writes:
> Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.courno...@gmail.com> writes: > >>> I think it would improve usability to be able to use the *same* names in >>> an override file. Got a package with name “python-pytorch” in that >>> file? It replaces “python-pytorch” in the graph. >> >> It's still a bit too abstract in my mind. Could you please provide a >> skeletton of what the overrides file would look like? > > It would just like a file you’d pass to “guix build -f”, except that it > wouldn’t need to evaluate to a single package. It would contain a bunch > of package definitions. > > This would replace the need to set GUIX_PACKAGE_PATH (or pass -L) to a > directory containing a module, and set up package transformations for > each package. > > It would also be lighter than requiring the use of a manifest, which can > get rather complicated when more than a few packages are to be replaced > in the graph. I see. I can see how that could be convenient, but I'm a bit wary of introducing yet another way to rewrite inputs (we have the CLI and the manifest already). On the other hand, the stdin/--args-file trick could be universally useful and be a way to leverage the CLI in a more user/vcs-friendly way (the CLI should be easier to approach than writing a package definition -- if it's not let's discuss how to improve it), so perhaps we could start with implementing that? -- Thanks, Maxim
