Olivier Dion <[email protected]> writes:
> On Thu, 28 Apr 2022, Ricardo Wurmus <[email protected]> wrote: >> Olivier Dion <[email protected]> writes: >> >>> In my case, I prefer to avoid using package object directly. As >>> mentioned in GWL' manual, the version of Guix running GWL and the >>> version of Guix used by GWL (the inferior) might not be the same. Thus, >>> it is not okay for reproducibility in the long term. In my case, I use >>> `guix time-machine --channels` as the inferior. >> >> The process itself could specify channels to use for its environment. >> Then it would be self-contained and reproducible without having to rely >> on time-machine. > > Is this already supported in GWL? I'm not sure if I understand how you > would do this. How would it be different from using time-machine? It is not yet supported in GWL, but it would only be a small change. The GWL has support for inferiors but currently only uses the “invoking” Guix for packages. We could use a different set of channels per process definition. Each process runs in its own environment; it doesn’t have to be all done with the same version of Guix. Whether or not to support this is merely a question of how easily workflows and processes can be reused or integrated in other workflows. -- Ricardo
