From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Jan 29 16:52:14 2021 Received: (at 45919) by debbugs.gnu.org; 29 Jan 2021 21:52:14 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:53090 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1l5bgY-0004kH-5d for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 16:52:14 -0500 Received: from relay9-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.199]:43755) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1l5bgT-0004jg-Qd for 45919@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 16:52:08 -0500 X-Originating-IP: 86.247.16.87 Received: from mimimi (lfbn-idf2-1-709-87.w86-247.abo.wanadoo.fr [86.247.16.87]) (Authenticated sender: mail@ambrevar.xyz) by relay9-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 93B1AFF803; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 21:51:58 +0000 (UTC) From: Pierre Neidhardt To: zimoun , Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= , 45919@debbugs.gnu.org Subject: Re: [bug#45919] [PATCH 0/8] Exporting a manifest and channels from a profile In-Reply-To: <865z3fh8pn.fsf@gmail.com> References: <20210116182957.31075-1-ludo@gnu.org> <87wnvyv7w6.fsf@gnu.org> <871re5t2lg.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <874kizsk0z.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <865z3fh8pn.fsf@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2021 22:51:57 +0100 Message-ID: <87eei3quma.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Spam-Score: 1.8 (+) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: zimoun writes: >> I just had a cursory look, and my main concern is that maybe exposing >> commands is one more thing to learn for the user, and one more step to >> run to get a simple file. >> >> Instead, what abou [...] Content analysis details: (1.8 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3 RBL: Good reputation (+3) [217.70.183.199 listed in wl.mailspike.net] -0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, low trust [217.70.183.199 listed in list.dnswl.org] 0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 2.0 PDS_OTHER_BAD_TLD Untrustworthy TLDs [URI: ambrevar.xyz (xyz)] 0.5 FROM_SUSPICIOUS_NTLD From abused NTLD 0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL Mailspike good senders X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 45919 Cc: guix-devel X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 1.8 (+) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: zimoun writes: >> I just had a cursory look, and my main concern is that maybe exposing >> commands is one more thing to learn for the user, and one more step to >> run to get a simple file. >> >> Instead, what abou [...] Content analysis details: (1.8 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3 RBL: Good reputation (+3) [217.70.183.199 listed in wl.mailspike.net] -0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, low trust [217.70.183.199 listed in list.dnswl.org] 0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 2.0 PDS_OTHER_BAD_TLD Untrustworthy TLDs [URI: ambrevar.xyz (xyz)] -1.0 MAILING_LIST_MULTI Multiple indicators imply a widely-seen list manager 0.5 FROM_SUSPICIOUS_NTLD From abused NTLD 0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL Mailspike good senders 1.0 BULK_RE_SUSP_NTLD Precedence bulk and RE: from a suspicious TLD --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable zimoun writes: >> I just had a cursory look, and my main concern is that maybe exposing >> commands is one more thing to learn for the user, and one more step to >> run to get a simple file. >> >> Instead, what about doing what system profiles already do with >> >> /run/current-system/channels.scm >> /run/current-system/configuration.scm >> >> and store the result of the proposed commands directly in >> $PROFILE/channels.scm and $PROFILE/manifest-spec.scm, on each profile >> upgrade? > > If I understand correctly, Pierre, you are proposing 2 things: 1) only > one command and 2) export by default in $PROFILE. Right? > > Yeah, sounds a good idea to me. Even if #2 seems a bit of re-work for > the patch set. :-) Sorry, misunderstanding :) I'm proposing: 1) Zero command :p 2) On every profile modification (install, upgrade, removal), store the channel description and the manifest specification (as produced by this patch commands) to $GUIX_PROFILE/channels.scm and $GUIX_PROFILE/manifest-spec.scm, respectively. ($GUIX_PROFILE being the target profile, of course.) Does that make more sense? =2D-=20 Pierre Neidhardt https://ambrevar.xyz/ --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQFGBAEBCAAwFiEEUPM+LlsMPZAEJKvom9z0l6S7zH8FAmAUg30SHG1haWxAYW1i cmV2YXIueHl6AAoJEJvc9Jeku8x/xSMH+wQAfaDedrAByhqFG/MoSBu5hIypZ+Bg JMKWOgiFoCEyfsIlSlzaoPZ9NpFjjQgT+vFCAgwKY87xm+r//jsps4is+1uaCpL7 887pyqYtCXdTHT1GoxugcHMT2i9QhXxMg6D1z9qgxcfd3pe6icR3VS5EXLPNYlXK JkhPwKeonphRQwde7s7/GZRjI2OWlTEDIQwzsg/xWZsPuCCM1md9E8BNfZxeuFMQ o3YVK1Tlf+2YpfNpEwN80UGubA+2Rjkjz9vlzAZmmbF9hJyprER6UXdcv5vXUSAn FrOgwZsSXzM/IQnFOiKXhxiVWZbTVkrhAQ141cZuJK0RF2byyAfciXo= =c0vu -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--