Simon Tournier <[email protected]> writes: > On ven., 12 mai 2023 at 14:06, André A. Gomes <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 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? Hello Simon, Indeed, I have interpreted that section from the manual in the same as you did. However, as I've mentioned in the previous message, "guix shell -- foo-command" creates an empty environment and then runs foo-command (regardless of the existence of guix/manifest.scm). I don't think it ever behaved otherwise, and this seems to be backed by Dave's message. Dave, indeed, I belong to that 1st group of people that expect a DWIM behaviour. Thanks. -- André A. Gomes "You cannot even find the ruins..."
