Re: Warning on using GUIX_PACKAGE_PATH

[Pjotr Prins]

On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 04:50:23PM +0000, ng0 wrote:
> On 17-02-09 15:08:35, John Darrington wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 01:30:48PM +0000, Pjotr Prins wrote:
> >      @FOSDEM we concluded that GUIX_PACKAGE_PATH does not necessarily work
> >      that wel. I added to my guix-notes the following:
> >      
> >      +Note that, even though GUIX_PACKAGE_PATH can be a feasible way of
> >      +adding and maintaining packages, it has two largish downsides: (1) it
> >      +is removed from the main package tree and therefore not easily shared
> >      +and integrated and (2) to remain compatible you need to juggle two git
> >      +trees which may go out of synch.
> > 
> > 
> > Those are indeed cavaets.  But whether they are "downsides" or "largish" is
> > a matter for individual users to decide.
> > 
> > Some people 1) don't want to share the pacakges they create; and/or 2) are
> > prepared to accept the effort keeping the two things in sync.
> > 
> > J'
> 
> There's a third case: packages which can simply be "as they are" and
> knowing they will not end up in upstream master tree.
> It is easier for me to maintain and experiment with what's the best way
> to provide multiple packages of development versions which depend on
> each other in a guix-package-path, rather than maintain yet another
> branch or yet another full blown guix master repository.

Just to be clear - I agree with both your statements. I merely mean to
warn people that read my notes on the effect of such a choice. It is
something I learnt the hard way. I will still use GUIX_PACKAGE_PATH
until we get channels. That mystical solution that will solve all my
problems ;)

Same for 'guix pull'. It is merely a warning.

Pj.