Re: Reorganizing guix package commands

[myglc2]

Ricardo Wurmus <address@hidden> writes:

> myglc2 <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> Alex Kost <address@hidden> writes:
>>
>>> Ludovic Courtès (2016-04-18 20:20 +0300) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Alex Kost <address@hidden> skribis:
>>>>
>>>>> I've just sent a message to bug#22587¹, but I realized it is better to
>>>>> discuss it here in a separate thread.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, I think there are inconsistencies in guix commands.  For example, we
>>>>> have "guix system build" to build a system, but "guix build" to build a
>>>>> package.  IMO "guix package build" would be a better choice.
>>>>>
>>>>> In general, I think it would be good to move package commands inside
>>>>> "guix package", e.g, to make "guix package lint", "guix package size",
>>>>> etc.
>>>>
>>>> Why not consider “package” to be the default word?  :-)
>>>
>>> Interesting, but why do we need to have "guix package" at all?  Let's
>>> just use "guix --install", etc.  (This is not what I suggest :-))
>>>
>>>> I can see how adding “package” everywhere helps categorize things
>>>> mentally, but as a user interface, I think it would be rather bad.
>>>
>>> As a user, I think it would be rather good.  (This is just my user opinion)
>>>
>>>> Also, it’s not that simple: “guix size” can take a store item instead of
>>>> a package name, “guix graph” cannot do it yet but it would be useful if
>>>> it could (“guix graph -t references $(readlink -f /run/current-system)”),
>>>> etc.
>>>
>>> Hm, OK, I'm not sure, but let's leave "graph" and "size" alone for now.
>>>
>>>> I still think that having aliases like “guix install” as Andy proposed
>>>> long ago would be useful, though I never started working on it.
>>>
>>> I agree!  Except I think they should be inside "guix package":
>>>
>>>   guix package install ...
>>>   guix package remove ...
>>>
>>> As for the transactional operations (I mean remove/install in one
>>> command), I think we can do it in a separate "guix profile" command:
>>>
>>>   guix profile --install ... --remove ...
>>>
>>>> There are probably other improvements to do around “guix package” (maybe
>>>> turning some of its options into separate sub-commands as was suggested
>>>> before.)  All we need is a clear view of where we’re going and patches.  
>>>> :-)
>>>
>>> Here is the summary of the changes I think it would be good to have:
>>>
>>> | Replace this:                     | With this:                        |
>>> |-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------|
>>> | guix build                        | guix package build                |
>>> | guix edit                         | guix package definition¹          |
>>> | guix import                       | guix package import               |
>>> | guix lint                         | guix package lint                 |
>>> | guix refresh                      | guix package refresh              |
>>> | guix package --show               | guix package show                 |
>>> | guix package --search             | guix package search               |
>>> | guix package --list-available     | guix package list                 |
>>> |-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------|
>>> | guix package --list-generations   | guix profile --list-generations   |
>>> | guix package --list-installed     | guix profile --list-installed     |
>>> | guix package --delete-generations | guix profile --delete-generations |
>>> | guix package --switch-generations | guix profile --switch-generations |
>>> | guix package --roll-back          | guix profile --roll-back          |
>>> | guix package --manifest           | guix profile --manifest           |
>>>
>>> ¹ "edit" name is confusing: <http://bugs.gnu.org/22587>
>>>
>>> Maybe instead of --list-generations and others, these options should
>>> transform into subcommands (list-generations) of "guix profile".
>>
>> The term 'profile' is used at user- and system- levels:
>>
>> 3.1 Features
>> ============
>> [...]
>>    Instead of referring to these directories, users have their own
>> “profile”, which points to the packages that they actually want to use.
>> These profiles are stored within each user’s home directory, at
>> ‘$HOME/.guix-profile’.
>>
>> 7.2.2 ‘operating-system’ Reference
>> ----------------------------------
>>      ‘packages’ (default: %BASE-PACKAGES)
>>           The set of packages installed in the global profile, which is
>>           accessible at ‘/run/current-system/profile’.
>>
>> ... and in home directories:
>>
>> /home/user1/.guix-profile -> /var/guix/profiles/per-user/user1/guix-profile
>> /home/user1/.profile
>>
>> Making the use of 'profile' here ambiguous. So I suggest that you change
>> 'guix profile ...' to 'guix user ...' like so:
>
> I don’t think it’s ambiguous at all.  The system profile is a profile
> like any other, so you can, for example, list installed packages like
> this:
>
>     guix package -p /run/booted-system/profile \
>       --list-installed
>
> What doesn’t work is to operate on generations because the booted-system
> profile is a direct link to a store item; there is no indirection.  You
> also cannot use “--manifest” on it because the profile contents are
> controlled via “guix system reconfigure /path/to/config.scm”.
>
> Rather than making the differences bigger, I think we should unify
> profile management, i.e. make more of the commands for regular profiles
> work with the system profile (provided a user has root privileges).

I don't think this is a good idea. The more general purpose you make a
command the more situational the results are and the more skillful the
user has to be to use it.

As an example: You can replace matches and flame throwers with a single
tool, the flamethrower. If everybody discussing the idea is a
flamethrower operator, it probably sounds like a good idea ;-)

>> |-----------------------------------+--------------------------------|
>> | guix package --list-generations   | guix user --list-generations   |
>> | guix package --list-installed     | guix user --list-installed     |
>> | guix package --delete-generations | guix user --delete-generations |
>> | guix package --switch-generations | guix user --switch-generations |
>> | guix package --roll-back          | guix user --roll-back          |
>> | guix package --manifest           | guix user --manifest           |
>>
>> and similarly, the above ...
>>
>>>   guix package install ...
>>>   guix package remove ...
>>
>> ... would become ...
>>
>> guix user install ...
>> guix user remove ...
>
> I don’t think this is a good idea.  In addition to the reasons I stated
> above “user” is even more vague than “package” is.  The proposal to use
> “profile” for profile-related operations is a very natural one.
>
> Here at the MDC we are using many different profiles on a regular
> basis.  Multiple profiles is a common use-case.  Operating on profiles
> with “guix profile” seems really appropriate; doing this via “guix user”
> is confusing to me.  I don’t know what “user” stands for.

"user" is short for "per-user-profile", as in ...

3.1 Features
============
[...]
The ‘guix package’ command is the central tool to manage packages
(*note Invoking guix package::).  It operates on the per-user profiles,
and can be used _with normal user privileges_.