Alex Kost <alez...@gmail.com> skribis:
> myglc2 (2016-02-07 21:04 +0300) wrote:
[...]
>> Calling these functions 'guix edit' and 'M-x guix-edit' implies that the
>> user will be able to modify the recipe, but this is not actually the
>> case. The functions should be given a more informative and accurate
>> name, such as: 'guix view', 'guix inspect', or 'guix examine'.
>
> Along with the package recipes that come with Guix, a user can also have
> his/her own packages (specified using GUIX_PACKAGE_PATH env var), and
> "guix edit my-super-package" opens a user's file with this package. It
> is highly likely that this file is editable, so "guix edit" is a perfect
> name in this case I think. IMO it's a user responsibility to understand
> what files can be edited and what cannot.
I sympathize with the frustration of myglc2, but I agree with you Alex.
> But I agree that this may be confusing, so maybe we should clarify the
> manual to explain in (info "(guix) Invoking guix edit") that store files
> must not be edited.
Yes. Can one of you propose a way to phrase it?
I also had in mind that ‘someday’ we could have:
guix edit --clone foo
which would automatically open, say,
~/.config/guix/personal/packages.scm with a template like:
(define-module (personal packages)
#:use-module (guix packages)
#:use-module (gnu packages foo))
(define-public my-foo
(package
(inherit foo)
(name "foo-personal")))
It’s a bit of work, but it’d be nice.
Ludo’.
