IRC channel logs

2021-11-08.log

back to list of logs

***bonz060 is now known as gn2-bot
***gn2-bot is now known as bonz060
***bonz060 is now known as gn2-bot
***gn2-bot is now known as bonz060
***bonz060 is now known as gn2-bot
***gn2-bot is now known as bonz060
<zimoun>hi!
<zimoun>civodul, teaching to new users in my lab, I note that default of “guix package --search-paths” is ’exact’ when “guix shell” is ’prefix’, i.e., require --pure for being ’exact’. It appears to me more coherent to have the same for both commands, i.e., ’prefix’.
<zimoun>other said, instead of “guix shell --pure”, it could be “guix shell --search-paths=exact”. WDYT?
<civodul>zimoun: hi! ah, why not
<civodul>i guess there's also the problem of internal consistency within 'guix shell', but perhaps we can just document --pure as having no effect on --search-paths
<civodul>or as being equivalent to --search-paths=exact
<zimoun>civodul, Well, from my POV, 1. “guix package --search-paths” should be default to ’prefix’ instead of ’exact’ and 2. “--pure” should be deprecated in favour of “--search-paths=exact”. Document is something but users barely open Manual; somehow POLA. ;-)
<civodul>yeah, we can propose this change and see
<civodul>the compatibility story isn't great because things will suddently behave differently
<civodul>but maybe people will find it acceptable?
<zimoun>Bah this compatibility story is becoming annoying if we cannot fix any CLI flaws. Especially when I do not see the issue because of “guix time-machine”.
<civodul>there are always two points on view on compatibility matters: the user's, and the developer's
<civodul>usually at odds :-)
<zimoun>:-)
<zimoun>But I would like to fix user workflow; not mine. ;-)
<zimoun>Oh civodul, I missed the discussion on swh-devel mailing list about Disarchive and header. Thanks for having tooted it. ;-)
<civodul>yeah, insightful!