Re: Reviving Emacs-Guix

[Pierre Neidhardt]

Hi Simon!

zimoun <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> writes:

> Is it possible to currently build the packages using Emacs-Guix?
>
> And if you talk about ‘guix-devel-build-package-source‘, it needs before
> to ’run-geiser’, I guess.

Yes, using guix-devel-build-package-source, or even building by writing
Scheme code in the Guix REPL.

>> - https://gitlab.com/emacs-geiser/geiser/-/issues/9
>
> 8 months is bunch of time but not a while. :-)

Actually 9 months, but the issue has been there forever.

The problem is the Schemers are just painfully dealing with the status
quo.  I believe we need to address this.  Geiser is lagging behind by
far, compared to what SLIME, SLY, racket-mode and CIDER can offer.

>> - https://gitlab.com/emacs-geiser/geiser/-/issues/11
>
> 3 weeks is not a while, neither. ;-)

Which 3 weeks?  I think you looked at Maxim's comment :p  The issue was
also opened 9 months ago.

>> I'd like insist: in the current state of Geiser, we cannot leverage it
>> reliably in Emacs-Guix.  We need to talk to Guix directly, e.g. with
>> `guix repl` like I've done in Nyxt.
>
> For all what “guix-popup” does, maybe pipe to “guix repl” should
> simplify.  But I do not see how one could work interactively without
> Geiser; for example piping to “guix repl” can not fix your concern about
> “Traces are not interactive”, fixing Geiser can.

Yes, but my point is that since traces are mostly useless as it is now,
we don't lose any benefit by using `guix repl'.

We have 2 options:

- Fixing Geiser, which might take a long time, leaving us with a broken
  emacs-guix for the time being.
  It's not even clear that it can be done without rewriting everything.

- Or use `guix repl`, which is known to work, already has working code
  out there, and can be deployed in a week or two.

I find the second option more attractive.

We can always go back to Geiser at some point in the future when it gets
more reliable.

Cheers!

-- 
Pierre Neidhardt
https://ambrevar.xyz/

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature