Hi Simon, On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 12:10 PM Simon Tournier <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > On ven., 12 mai 2023 at 14:06, André A. Gomes <[email protected]> wrote: > > > --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- > > guix shell -D -f /path/to/guix.scm -- foo-command > > --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- > > > > The incantation below creates an empty environment. But wouldn't it be > > nice if it would infer manifest.scm or guix.scm, in case they exist in > > the current directory? > > > > --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- > > guix shell -- foo-command > > --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- > > That’s already the case, no? From the manual: > > If it finds a manifest.scm in the current working directory or any > of its parents, it uses this manifest as though it was given via > --manifest. Likewise, if it finds a guix.scm in the same > directories, it uses it to build a development profile as though > both --development and --file were present. In either case, the file > will only be loaded if the directory it resides in is listed in > ~/.config/guix/shell-authorized-directories. This provides an easy > way to define, share, and enter development environments. > > <https://guix.gnu.org/manual/devel/en/guix.html#Invoking-guix-shell> > > Is it a regression?
It *sounds* like it should be the case, but it isn't. Specifying the command to run explicitly is considered a non-interactive case, and in non-interactive mode the automagic guix.scm/manifest.scm reading does not occur. :( - Dave
