Re: Profiles/manifests-related command line interface enhancements

[zimoun]

Hi Konrad,

On Tue, 5 Nov 2019 at 07:27, Konrad Hinsen <address@hidden> wrote:

> two dimensions I mentioned, this should include shareable/re-usable
> vs. personal. People publish and share Docker images, so why wouldn't
> they publish and share Guix super-packages?

I am not sure to see which feature is missing.

 - Channels allow to share package definition;
 - Publish allows to share pre-built binaries;
 - Pack allows to share images.

So what should be missing should be a central server collecting all to
ease, à la DockerHub.

>From my point of view, ephemeral (environment) vs persistent (profile)
depends on use-case but at the end the only concern is: how to
populate them? And the only answer should be: declarative (manifest);
the ad-hoc (package -i) should not be the usual way but only a
quick&dirt test.

Therefore ephemeral (environment) vs persistent (package --profile)
should be compliant. Especially about composition. However, as
discussed elsewhere about manifest and the time-machine patch -- I
have not tried yet --, the manifest file perhaps needs more fine
control to better describe the channels, substitutes etc..

> This third dimension also
> raises the question of where the information (profiles, manifests, ...)
> are stored and managed (version control?),

Profiles are managed by Guix, isn't it?
I mean their information are in generations, from my understanding.

Manifests are managed by the user. And they does what they wants. ;-)

> and how they are referred to
> (name, filename, ...).

Do you mean that
  guix environment -m https://example.com/my-manifest.scm
should be possible?


All the best,
simon