On 06-09-2022 09:18, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
"guix shell" is for making packages available in the
environment. Currently, "guix shell -- foobar" does not make any
packages available -- it's effectively a no-op except for setting
GUIX_ENVIRONMENT.
True, though you could always have scripts that
Maxime Devos skribis:
> On 05-09-2022 15:06, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>> The main difficulty here is that, should we eventually decide to change
>> behaviors, we’ll have to devise a migration timeline etc. (As an
>> example, we chose to keep ‘guix environment’ until at least May 2023;
>> all this
On 05-09-2022 15:06, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
The main difficulty here is that, should we eventually decide to change
behaviors, we’ll have to devise a migration timeline etc. (As an
example, we chose to keep ‘guix environment’ until at least May 2023;
all this must take time if we want to avoid
Hi Ludo,
On Mon, Sep 5, 2022 at 9:06 AM Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>
> Hi David,
>
> Thanks for your feedback on this.
>
> "Thompson, David" skribis:
>
> > So there are some competing expectations here. The status quo is that
> > non-interactive invocations of 'guix shell' will not load a guix.scm
Hi David,
Thanks for your feedback on this.
"Thompson, David" skribis:
> So there are some competing expectations here. The status quo is that
> non-interactive invocations of 'guix shell' will not load a guix.scm or
> manifest.scm file unless explicitly told to via --file/--manifest following
So there are some competing expectations here. The status quo is that
non-interactive invocations of 'guix shell' will not load a guix.scm or
manifest.scm file unless explicitly told to via --file/--manifest following
the "explicit is better than implicit" philosophy. People like myself who
Hi Tobias,
On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 11:01 AM Tobias Geerinckx-Rice wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> Thompson, David 写道：
> > The hostility here and in the other issue where you are applying
> > stop energy to my work is less than appreciated.
>
> Some healthy ‘stop energy’ was needed here, and in bug
Hi David,
Thompson, David 写道：
The hostility here and in the other issue where you are applying
stop energy to my work is less than appreciated.
Some healthy ‘stop energy’ was needed here, and in bug #56444.
Please spend that energy on fleshing out requirements and
improving the patches if
On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 9:24 AM Maxime Devos wrote:
> On 29-08-2022 14:48, Thompson, David wrote:
>
> Hi Maxime,
>
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 6:29 AM Maxime Devos
> wrote:
>
>> On 29-08-2022 03:28, Thompson, David wrote:
>>
>> Hi again,
>>
>> I decided to just implement the fix and see what
On 29-08-2022 14:48, Thompson, David wrote:
Hi Maxime,
On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 6:29 AM Maxime Devos
wrote:
On 29-08-2022 03:28, Thompson, David wrote:
Hi again,
I decided to just implement the fix and see what people think of
it. Simply removing a check for
Hi Maxime,
On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 6:29 AM Maxime Devos wrote:
> On 29-08-2022 03:28, Thompson, David wrote:
>
> Hi again,
>
> I decided to just implement the fix and see what people think of it.
> Simply removing a check for non-interactive invocation solves the issue and
> now 'guix shell'
On 29-08-2022 03:28, Thompson, David wrote:
Hi again,
I decided to just implement the fix and see what people think of it.
Simply removing a check for non-interactive invocation solves the
issue and now 'guix shell' and 'guix shell -- make' act exactly the
same except for which command
Hi again,
I decided to just implement the fix and see what people think of it.
Simply removing a check for non-interactive invocation solves the issue and
now 'guix shell' and 'guix shell -- make' act exactly the same except for
which command they run. Patch attached.
- Dave
From
Hi,
When 'guix shell' is run without arguments, there is some convenient
default logic applied to check for a manifest.scm or guix.scm file and do
the right thing with it. However, using -- to override the default command
like 'guix shell -- make' doesn't do the same thing. I expect that it would
15 matches
Mail list logo
