Ludovic Courtès l...@gnu.org writes:
David Thompson dthomps...@worcester.edu skribis:
Ludovic Courtès l...@gnu.org writes:
I'm a bit confused about that. Are you suggesting we merge 'guix
environment' into 'guix package'?
A possibility might be to:
• keep ‘guix environment’ as is;
As I use 'guix environment', I realize that I often do not want to
create an environment from the inputs of a package, but rather that I
want to create an environment from the package itself. I didn't think
it was an issue when I did the initial development, but in practice it
has proven to be
David Thompson dthomps...@worcester.edu skribis:
But all of that boilerplate is unnecessary since it's not possible to
actually build the package successfully without a proper hash of the
source AFAICT. Really, I would rather just use a simple list of
packages:
(list autoconf automake
Ludovic Courtès l...@gnu.org writes:
David Thompson dthomps...@worcester.edu skribis:
But all of that boilerplate is unnecessary since it's not possible to
actually build the package successfully without a proper hash of the
source AFAICT. Really, I would rather just use a simple list of
Andreas Enge andr...@enge.fr writes:
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 11:45:02AM -0500, David Thompson wrote:
guix environment guile guile-sdl # let's tinker with SDL in Guile
Is this not already covered by doing a guix package -i ..., tinkering,
and a roll-back? There is one more line to type
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 11:45:02AM -0500, David Thompson wrote:
guix environment guile guile-sdl # let's tinker with SDL in Guile
Is this not already covered by doing a guix package -i ..., tinkering,
and a roll-back? There is one more line to type for the roll-back.
The functionality with
David Thompson dthomps...@worcester.edu skribis:
Ludovic Courtès l...@gnu.org writes:
David Thompson dthomps...@worcester.edu skribis:
But all of that boilerplate is unnecessary since it's not possible to
actually build the package successfully without a proper hash of the
source AFAICT.
