From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Nov 22 18:04:39 2015 Received: (at 20255) by debbugs.gnu.org; 22 Nov 2015 23:04:39 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48631 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1a0dgU-00063v-4F for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 22 Nov 2015 18:04:38 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:46539) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1a0dg9-00063O-AJ for 20255@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 22 Nov 2015 18:04:36 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a0dg4-0004kQ-3I for 20255@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 22 Nov 2015 18:04:17 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:53478) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a0dg4-0004kM-01; Sun, 22 Nov 2015 18:04:12 -0500 Received: from reverse-83.fdn.fr ([80.67.176.83]:49452 helo=pluto) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1a0dg3-0004Co-BR; Sun, 22 Nov 2015 18:04:11 -0500 From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) To: Alex Kost Subject: Re: bug#20255: 'search-paths' should respect both user and system profile. References: <877ftschjt.fsf@gmail.com> <87fv8fip01.fsf@gnu.org> <87d23j1bxk.fsf@gmail.com> <871tjyfnl8.fsf@gnu.org> <876199q4z1.fsf@gmail.com> <87ioca4ojo.fsf@gnu.org> <87lh9tvcws.fsf@gnu.org> <87h9kguwc4.fsf@gmail.com> <87ziy7d90z.fsf@gnu.org> <874mgfkxee.fsf@gmail.com> <87wptb5d1y.fsf@gnu.org> <87r3jisc76.fsf@gmail.com> <87lh9q1f2i.fsf@gnu.org> <877fl9q3gv.fsf@gmail.com> X-URL: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ X-Revolutionary-Date: 2 Frimaire an 224 de la =?utf-8?Q?R=C3=A9volution?= X-PGP-Key-ID: 0x3D9AEBB5 X-PGP-Key: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ludovic.asc X-PGP-Fingerprint: 3CE4 6455 8A84 FDC6 9DB4 0CFB 090B 1199 3D9A EBB5 X-OS: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 00:04:09 +0100 In-Reply-To: <877fl9q3gv.fsf@gmail.com> (Alex Kost's message of "Sun, 22 Nov 2015 21:44:00 +0300") Message-ID: <87h9kdy6ty.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-Spam-Score: -5.6 (-----) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 20255 Cc: 20255@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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: -5.6 (-----) Alex Kost skribis: > Ludovic Court=C3=A8s (2015-11-22 13:52 +0300) wrote: [...] >> To me, what =E5=AE=8B=E6=96=87=E6=AD=A6 reported at the beginning of thi= s thread is a >> usability issue. We=E2=80=99ve hacked around it so far, but we know the= re are >> cases where the hacks aren=E2=80=99t enough. >> >> We could declare it as =E2=80=9Cwon=E2=80=99t fix=E2=80=9D, but I=E2=80= =99m not comfortable with that. > > No, no, I'm against =E2=80=9Cwon't fix=E2=80=9D. I don't mind if it's ca= lled a bug, and > a solution you suggest is the best, OK. > but it suits only the default case of a single user profile. If I > have several user profiles, it does nothing useful for me, only wastes > the time. I think this is fine. ~/.guix-profile is treated specially in many ways. I think users do not expect other profiles to be magically taken into account. > OK, for the bug at hand, invoking "guix package --search-paths" looks > like the only possible solution, but please don't commit this patch > without giving a user a chance to decide what to put in /etc/profile. OK. >> The solution I came up with might be inadequate. Then we need to come >> up with an alternate proposal, or to resign and mark it as =E2=80=9Cwont= fix.=E2=80=9D > > It is adequate and I'm not against it. OK. To me, that it takes 2 seconds on your machines suggests that it=E2=80= =99s not great either. >> What would you suggest? > > After all, I realized what is my main concern: "/etc/profile" is > non-editable. If I don't like some pieces of this file, I can do > nothing, and I just have to live with it and suffer. Ideally I would > like to decide what pieces I want to put in /etc/profile and what I > don't. But it's probably not possible, so=E2=80=A6 > > =E2=80=A6 what I suggest now is just to give an option to avoid generatin= g the > default /etc/profile. What about making an 'operating-system' field for > this file (similar to 'sudoers-file' or 'hosts-file')? So when such > 'profile-file' is specified, it will be used instead of the default one > (of course, it should be mentioned in the manual that it's only for > those users who are sure what they do). I think we could make an /etc/profile-service that receives snippets meant to be glued together into the final /etc/profile. Users could specify the top or bottom of the file. There could be a combined-search-paths-service that implements the solution I proposed here. WDYT? > If this 'profile-file' field appears, I will gladly use it, and I will > not object to any future changes in /etc/profile. Of course we want to offer this flexibility. But I think it=E2=80=99s also important to discuss the defaults, to make sure they are acceptable to many and that they improve the =E2=80=9Cuser experience.=E2=80=9D Thanks, Ludo=E2=80=99.